Climate Legislation Would Hit Washingtonians in the Wallet---BIG TIME

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently calculated the impacts of the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill (S.2191) at nearly doubling of natural gas costs got Americans pay.  EIA projects natural gas prices would go from $11 per MMBTU to $19 MMBTU under the legislation will be considered in Congress starting in June.

On a national level, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) estimate the legislation which sets a goal of reducing greenhouse gases by 63% by 2050 would reduce U.S. GDP (gross domestic product) by $210 billion per year by 2020 and create employment losses of 1.8 million in 2020.

NAM/ACCF recently produced a study looking at potential impacts by state if S. 2191 were to pass. The information in the study ranges from best to worst case scenarios for Washington State.  They include:

• Job loses ranging from 23,688 to 35,602 in 2020 and 61,519 to 87,891 in 2030.
• Washingtonians would see disposable household income reduced by $1,083 to $3,512 by 2020 and $4,497 to $8,200 by 2030.
• Gasoline prices would increase between 72% and 151% by 2030 on top of the nearly $4 a gallon we are currently paying.
• Electricity costs would increase by 38% to 49% by 2030.
• Washington residents would pay between 111% and 152% more for their natural gas.
• Washington's GDP would be reduced by $3.4 to $4.7 billion per year by 2020 and $12.5 and $14.7 billion by 2030.
• Our state's 2,910 schools and universities and 112 hospitals would likely experience a 20% to 24% increase in operating costs by 2020 and 64% 6o 84% increase by 2030.

In the presidential race, Sen. John McCain (R) is tracking with the Lieberman-Warner goals, but Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama upped the stakes.  They want an 80% reduction by 2050. AWB blogged on the impacts of their approach on April 28.  By current estimates, according to Steve Hayward, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Americans couldn't even heat their homes if the 80% by 2050 standard were imposed.

Remember, the Obama-Clinton and Lieberman-Warner (McCain) legislation only applies to the United States.  It does nothing to curb the rapid growth of greenhouse gases and other pollutants coming from China, India and the rest of the rapidly developing economies around the world.

In its zeal to be the global leader, those we have elected to Congress today seem bent on ignoring what is happening in other parts of the world and really aren't calculating the costs on what it will take to sustain even the most rudimentary life in America.  In Washington, our state and local lawmakers and elected officials pride themselves in setting the pace for the rest of the country believing they will all follow our lead. What if they don't?

We all want a healthy environment and strong, sustainable green industries.  We all want jobs and a better life for our children and grandchildren. Before we rush to legislate and regulate; STOP, look at the issues and solutions in depth, and do the math.  We might find that being a "fast follower" may serve our citizens better than being an "impulsive leader."

Don C. Brunell, President (DonB@awb.org) 

Comments

[rolandovich]

Which country(ies) should the U.S. follow?