Cap & Trade documents released via the FOIA

[Cardinal]

So much for transparency.

Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year - Taking Liberties - CBS News

Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year

Posted by Declan McCullagh
(AP)
The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."

The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

These disclosures will probably not aid the political prospects of the Democrats' cap and trade bill. The House of Representatives approved it by a remarkably narrow margin in June -- the bill would have failed if only six House members had switched their votes to "no" -- and it faces significant opposition in the Senate.

One reason the bill faces an uncertain future is concern about its cost. House Republican Leader John Boehner has estimated the additional tax bill would be at $366 billion a year, or $3,100 a year per family. Democrats have pointed to estimates from MIT's John Reilly, who put the cost at $800 a year per family, and noted that tax credits to low income households could offset part of the bite. The Heritage Foundation says that, by 2035, "the typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year."

One difference is that while Heritage's numbers are talking about 26 years in the future, the Treasury Department's figures don't have a time limit.

"Heritage is saying publicly what the administration is saying to itself privately," says Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who filed the FOIA request. "It's nice to see they're not spinning each other behind closed doors."

"They're not telling you the cost -- they're not telling you the benefit," says Horner, who wrote the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. "If they don't tell you the cost, and they don't tell you the benefit, what are they telling you? They're just talking about global salvation."

The FOIA'd document written by Judson Jaffe, who joined the Treasury Department's Office of Environment and Energy in January 2009, says: "Given the administration's proposal to auction all emission allowances, a cap-and-trade program could generate federal receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually." (Obviously, any final cap-and-trade system may be different from what Obama had proposed, and could yield higher or lower taxes.)

Because personal income tax revenues bring in around $1.37 trillion a year, a $200 billion additional tax would be the equivalent of a 15 percent increase a year. A $100 billion additional tax would represent a 7 or 8 percent increase a year.

One odd point: The document written by Jaffee includes this line: "It will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX." The Treasury Department redacted the rest of the sentence with a thick black line.

The Freedom of Information Act, of course, contains no this-might-embarrass-the-president exemption (nor, for that matter, should federal agencies be in the business of possibly suppressing dissenting climate change voices). You'd hope the presidential administration that boasts of being the "most open and transparent in history" would be more forthcoming than this.

[MattG]

I don't necessarily believe the numbers, but regardless of what this costs, there'd also be a cost in not doing anything.

[Rob T]

Originally Posted by MattG

I don't necessarily believe the numbers, but regardless of what this costs, there'd also be a cost in not doing anything.

You don't believe the numbers? I don't either. I'm sure that it will actually cost substantially more than what the Obama administration is claiming here.

[Cardinal]

So much for no taxes for anyone making under $250,000/yr., huh? This sounds a lot like "read my lips..." by daddy Bush.

[TimMullen]

Originally Posted by MattG

I don't necessarily believe the numbers, but regardless of what this costs, there'd also be a cost in not doing anything.

Maybe, but do you know what that cost might be? We could spend hundreds of billions of dollars and not change a thing, or maybe even make things worse. NOBODY has done a cost/benefit analysis of doing something about "Global Warming" (let alone the fact that lots of people/scientists still are not convinced that there is even a problem).

[skelliott2]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

Maybe, but do you know what that cost might be? We could spend hundreds of billions of dollars and not change a thing, or maybe even make things worse. NOBODY has done a cost/benefit analysis of doing something about "Global Warming" (let alone the fact that lots of people/scientists still are not convinced that there is even a problem).

My neighbor, who is a metorologist for the trading arm of an oil company, always says "we are not very acuate at gaging what the weather is going to be like tomorrow, what makes us think that we have a clue about hundreds of years from now!!". Makes sense to me...

[RichS]

My neighbor, who sells ice cream out of a truck, always says "whenever there are a lot of ice cream trucks out it always a hot day, so obviously ice cream trucks cause hot days!!". Makes sense to me.

[MattG]

I think this issue is larger than just money. It's about reducing our consumption of natural resources, which is really what we need to focus on, for the benefit of future generations.

[TimMullen]

Originally Posted by MattG

I think this issue is larger than just money. It's about reducing our consumption of natural resources, which is really what we need to focus on, for the benefit of future generations.

That is a completely different thing than charging for CO2 emissions. Conserving resources is a good thing - there are lots of way to do/encourage that. Destroying our economy and way of life is not a good thing...

[MattG]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

That is a completely different thing than charging for CO2 emissions. Conserving resources is a good thing - there are lots of way to do/encourage that. Destroying our economy and way of life is not a good thing...

But our economy and way of life is based on the consumption of a limited amount of natural resources, so we are destroying it every day already - it's just a question of how long it will last. CO2 emissions are, for the most part, directly tied to consumption of natural resources (biomass being the one exception I can think of). Discouraging emissions of CO2 also discourages consumption of natural resources.

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by MattG

But our economy and way of life is based on the consumption of a limited amount of natural resources, so we are destroying it every day already - it's just a question of how long it will last. CO2 emissions are, for the most part, directly tied to consumption of natural resources (biomass being the one exception I can think of). Discouraging emissions of CO2 also discourages consumption of natural resources.

Cap & Trade won't reduce anything except our bank accounts. All this bill does is give more incentive for industry to just pick up and go to China, where they can do as they please, as well as giving the government the power to sell air. It will do virtually nothing to help the environment or curb resource consumption.

If we want to be serious about alternative energy, windmills and solar panels aren't going to cut it. Realistically, we need to start building more nuclear power stations while doing some REAL R&D on cold fusion. If we can ever crack cold fusion, it will change the world forever.