Newt Gingrich’s voodoo cap-and-trade economics

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Newt Gingrich has taken to calling President Obama’s proposal to cap global warming pollution an “energy tax,” even specifically claiming it would be a “hidden $1,300-per-family energy-tax increase“:

If the country’s No. 1 priority is to create jobs, then

a hidden $1,300-per-family energy-tax increase in the guise of a cap-and-trade system is absolutely destructive. Herbert Hoover raised taxes in 1932, and it further crippled the economy

.

Newt Gingrich’s assertion is voodoo economics — designed to scare us into believing we can’t afford climate protection.

In Newt’s nightmare tax math, the economic value of the carbon market just disappears!

He assumes the money doesn’t get returned to taxpayers; it doesn’t get spent on any worthwhile investments in cleaner, smarter energy resources; it doesn’t get invested in ways to reduce the energy we waste today, saving us money; it doesn’t get used to help communities adapt to a changing climate; it doesn’t get used to address regional differences in the cost of cutting global warming pollution. No, in Newt’s scary world, the money just vanishes, leaving us only with the bills. Fortunately, in the real world the dollars created by the carbon market will go to all of these purposes, providing us with a safer climate, reduced dependence on oil imports, and creating new jobs to build our economic recovery.

In reality the cost of climate protection is far smaller than the size of the carbon market, from which the $1,300 estimate is derived. The cost to physically achieve the emission reductions — i.e., the compliance costs for polluting corporations — are roughly 10% of total carbon market value, according to the Energy Information Administration. The remaining 90% is just shifting money away from polluting activities toward cleaner goods and more secure sources of energy.

So, even if Newt were right that the total carbon market size worked out to $1300 per household, the actual cost of cutting that pollution would be more like $130 per household per year (minus any savings we earn from increased energy efficiency), or $2.50 a week.

And for that $2.50 (or less) per week we’d be getting a bargain that is hard to beat.

Just four categories of climate damages alone (hurricanes, higher energy bills, property lost to sea level rise, water supply impacts) are predicted to cost the average household $2,000 a year by 2025, $3,000 in 2050, rising rapidly to over $11,000 by the end of the century. And these estimates ignore (because they are too hard to count accurately), the added costs of droughts, floods, wildfires, agricultural damages, and the value of lost lives. We may not be able to eliminate all of these costs by acting now to cut pollution, but we sure can help reduce them dramatically.

So think twice before you rely on Newt for financial advice.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/20/newt...ics-energy-tax/

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

He assumes the money doesn’t get returned to taxpayers...

Wow. So the money gets taken from one family and gets returned "to taxpayers". That's still 1300 out of pocket per family.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He assumes the money doesn't get returned to taxpayers...

Wow. So the money gets taken from one family and gets returned "to taxpayers". That's still 1300 out of pocket per family.

$130 per family if you read it further.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

He assumes the money doesn't get returned to taxpayers...

Wow. So the money gets taken from one family and gets returned "to taxpayers". That's still 1300 out of pocket per family.

$130 per family if you read it further.

I did. The adjustment is voodoo math. Its 1300 this article is a POS.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Since the nation is about to launch into a long debate about the costs of climate action versus the cost of inaction, here is an overview of the major cost analyses of global climate action.

In its definitive 2007 synthesis report of the scientific literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded:

In 2050, global average macro-economic costs for mitigation towards stabilisation between 710 and 445ppm CO2-eq are between a 1% gain and 5.5% decrease of global GDP. This corresponds to slowing average annual global GDP growth by

less than 0.12 percentage points

.

So global GDP drops by under 0.12% per year — about one tenth of a penny on the dollar — even in the 445 ppm CO2-eq case (through 2050, see Table SPM.7). And this is for stabilization at 445 ppm CO2-eq, which is stabilization at 350 ppm CO2 (see Table SPM.6).

And that has a very good chance of averting the incalculable cost of catastrophic global warming impacts to the next 50 generations, which means the cost of action is far, far less than the cost of inaction.

The IPCC’s conclusion — and every single word in the report — was signed off on by 130 nations including China and the Bush Administration. Nor is this an especially controversial conclusion, at least among the few groups that have done comprehensive global economic and energy modeling:

• McKinsey 2008 Research in Review: Stabilizing at 450 ppm has a net cost near zero. [see cost curve for global greenhouse gas reduction measures -- click to enlarge.]
• Must read IEA report, Part 1: Act now with clean energy or face 6°C warming. Cost is NOT high — media blows the story

How can the world’s leading governments and scientific experts and McKinsey and the traditionally conservative International Energy Agency agree that we can avoid catastrophe for such a small cost?

Because that’s what the scientific and economic literature — and real-world experience — says.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/30/glob...t-high-benefit/

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Stop lying to people, Steven. It's not nice.

If you plan to steal our money from us, at least be honest about it.

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

Stop lying to people, Steven. It's not nice.

If you plan to steal our money from us, at least be honest about it.

[mawilson 2,133]

Newt Gingrich has taken to calling President Obama’s proposal to cap global warming pollution an “energy tax,” even specifically claiming it would be a “hidden $1,300-per-family energy-tax increase“:

If the country’s No. 1 priority is to create jobs, then

a hidden $1,300-per-family energy-tax increase in the guise of a cap-and-trade system is absolutely destructive. Herbert Hoover raised taxes in 1932, and it further crippled the economy

.

Except it's not hidden.

A gallon of gasoline is assumed to produce 8.8 kilograms (or 19.4 pounds) of CO2.

Cap-and-trade will probably tax carbon at $60-100 per metric ton. The exact number is

still unknown, but there are estimates that at $20 per metric ton, power plant emissions

will still rise 26 percent by 2030. That’s because it would be cheaper for power companies

to buy allowances from other industries than invest in technology to cut their own emissions.

At $60 per metric ton, emissions will drop 22 percent, and at $100 per metric ton, emissions

will drop 60 percent by 2030.

So let's say they tax it at $100 per metric ton.

The average American uses 500 gallons of gasoline every year. That's 4.4 metric tons

of CO2 and will cost you $440.

The average family size in the US is 3.19.

$440 x 3.19 = $1403.60

That's a $1,400 tax just on gasoline alone.

Hidden? Voodoo? Hardly.

[GaryC 7]

Newt Gingrich has taken to calling President Obama’s proposal to cap global warming pollution an “energy tax,” even specifically claiming it would be a “hidden $1,300-per-family energy-tax increase“:

If the country’s No. 1 priority is to create jobs, then

a hidden $1,300-per-family energy-tax increase in the guise of a cap-and-trade system is absolutely destructive. Herbert Hoover raised taxes in 1932, and it further crippled the economy

.

Except it's not hidden.

A gallon of gasoline is assumed to produce 8.8 kilograms (or 19.4 pounds) of CO2.

Cap-and-trade will probably tax carbon at $60-100 per metric ton. The exact number is

still unknown, but there are estimates that at $20 per metric ton, power plant emissions

will still rise 26 percent by 2030. That’s because it would be cheaper for power companies

to buy allowances from other industries than invest in technology to cut their own emissions.

At $60 per metric ton, emissions will drop 22 percent, and at $100 per metric ton, emissions

will drop 60 percent by 2030.

So let's say they tax it at $100 per metric ton.

The average American uses 500 gallons of gasoline every year. That's 4.4 metric tons

of CO2 and will cost you $440.

The average family size in the US is 3.19.

$440 x 3.19 = $1403.60

That's a $1,400 tax just on gasoline alone.

Hidden? Voodoo? Hardly.

Factor in all the other things we consume that uses energy and you can multiply it several times. Our electricity, food and anything else that must be shipped will all go up.

[mawilson 2,133]

Fortunately, in the real world the dollars created by the carbon market will go to all of these purposes, providing us with a safer climate, reduced dependence on oil imports, and creating new jobs to build our economic recovery.

Are our tax dollars going to all these purposes now?

Who can guarantee the dollars collected by taxing carbon will go to all these purposes in the future?

The government will find ways to spend it, to be sure, but it won't be anything useful.

That's a $1,400 tax just on gasoline alone.

Hidden? Voodoo? Hardly.

Factor in all the other things we consume that uses energy and you can multiply it several times. Our electricity, food and anything else that must be shipped will all go up.

Indeed, Gary. Newt's $1,300 estimate is very optimistic indeed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Stop lying to people, Steven. It's not nice.

If you plan to steal our money from us, at least be honest about it.

Ok...it's a communist plot to take away your cars and your guns. We'll all be riding horseback with bows and arrows if the plan succeeds.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Stop lying to people, Steven. It's not nice.

If you plan to steal our money from us, at least be honest about it.

Ok...it's a communist plot to take away your cars and your guns. We'll all be riding horseback with bows and arrows if the plan succeeds.

Thanks.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Stop lying to people, Steven. It's not nice.

If you plan to steal our money from us, at least be honest about it.

Ok...it's a communist plot to take away your cars and your guns. We'll all be riding horseback with bows and arrows if the plan succeeds.

Thanks.

Better take some archery classes, comrade.

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

Stop lying to people, Steven. It's not nice.

If you plan to steal our money from us, at least be honest about it.

Ok...it's a communist plot to take away your cars and your guns. We'll all be riding horseback with bows and arrows if the plan succeeds.

hmmm i better stock up on crossbows and beat the rush.

[Heracles 417]

Stop lying to people, Steven. It's not nice.

If you plan to steal our money from us, at least be honest about it.

Ok...it's a communist plot to take away your cars and your guns. We'll all be riding horseback with bows and arrows if the plan succeeds.

No it's a case of stereotypical liberal yank horse sh-t.

Liberal Yanks need to lead by example. Yes that means giving up your cars and moving back into the cities. It also means those liberal Hollywood elitists being required to downsize their 25,000 sq ft homes and stop jet setting in their private jets. Or using one of their 12 combustion engine vehicles.

PM me when that happens.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Constellation