This while creating jobs, cutting oil dependence, and slashing pollution
CAP’s Dan Weiss explained the ‘energy-only bill’ mirage: Why an energy bill could fail without pollution reduction measures or revenue. Now, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) recent analysis of the American Power Act, released July 7th, we know the APA would not only cut carbon emissions, but also the nation’s budget deficit: $19 billion by 2020. CAP intern Laurel Hunt has the story.
If enacted, the APA, the comprehensive clean energy and climate bill co-sponsored by Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), would:
Increase revenues by about $751 billion over the 2011-2020 period and direct spending by $732 billion over that 10-year period. In total, CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would reduce future deficits by about $19 billion over the 2011-2020 period.
This week’s CBO analysis is yet another example of a report showing that comprehensive clean energy and climate reform is both economically and environmentally beneficial to the country. Furthermore, a revenue source is required in any energy legislation in order to finance and spur the coming clean energy revolution. While an energy-only bill would not be affordable on its own, this analysis shows that the APA could make our critical clean energy investment agenda possible.
In addition to slashing the deficit, APA provides opportunities for job creation, stimulation of a clean energy economy, and reduction of dangerous global warming pollution. The legislation would also achieve all this while also providing relief to working families. APA is specifically designed to “provide tax credits, cash rebates, or rebates on utility bills to lessen the impact on consumers or households of higher prices that would result from the cap-and-trade programs,” and CBO estimates that APA’s Refundable Credit for Working Families Relief programs will provide $17.2 billion in support to working families via tax credit programs.
In response to the CBO’s new analysis, Senators Kerry and Lieberman issued a joint statement urging fellow senators to pass their legislation:
There is no more room for excuses — this must be our year to pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation and begin to send a price signal on carbon. Many of our colleagues have said they flatly oppose anything that adds a penny to the deficit, so we hope they look anew at this initiative which reduces it.
Given that the federal government incurred a deficit of just over $1.0 trillion for the first nine months of the 2010 fiscal year, as CBO estimated in its most recent Monthly Budget Review, this finding should play an important role in the fight. The impact on revenues from the APA would largely result from the revenues collected from the greenhouse gas and HFC cap-and-trade programs (and a small amount of additional revenue would be generated by assessments levied by the Carbon Storage Research Corporation and from penalties collected for noncompliance).
Though there are a number of energy-only bills and oil spill bills floating around in the Senate, the American Power Act is the only among these that more than pays for itself. This CBO analysis clearly demonstrates that, if passed, the legislation will pave the road to simultaneous economic and environmental prosperity.
– Laurel Hunt
Previous in TP Climate Progress
It doesn’t matter though – the CBO is in the pocket of Obama, so nothing they say can be trusted.
With current eco-system services pretty much valued at nothing indicates that reality-based valuation of significant action to mitigate the accelerating rate of enviromental devastation as being truly macro-economic and in the trillions of U.S. dollars.
2. fj2 (continued),
One could come up with a figure of something like $100 trillion to save the Netherlands, New York City including Wall Street, and London and other high-value geography through aggressive climate change mitigation easily considered a bargain.
Hey abe (comment 1), I have to conclude you actually believe what you wrote and are not merely playing devil’s advocate by tossing out a likely denier response. (Please correct me if I have misunderstood your intentions.) If you mean what you wrote, you need to provide facts to support your ungrounded assessment. Otherwise, it is nothing more than a worthless opinion and nobody here will take you seriously.
Best,
David Schonberger
I think abe was being facetious, David.
At least that’s the way I took it.
Seems to me that there’s some uncritical analysis with this CBO projection (the kind that’s often railed about).
Are there any assumptions regarding the revenue-side of the projections? (Constant-state economy unaffected by any indirect effects of the legislation, such as near term job/industry loss vs. longer term new job/industry creation)?
What about the spending side? (no change in interest rates/inflation … peace in the world? Subsidization of utilities to keep prices down as we transition to the new energy portfolio ratios?)
With any unfavorable CBO projection, there’s a whole bunch of caveats that are pointed out…Is this the first perfect, assumptionless CBO projection in its history?
Yeah, maybe so, Brewster. If so, abe, consider this a retraction and apology. Your email was so terse that I could not be sure. :-)
Best,
David
It is my understanding that the CBO uses data provided by the White House to do its predictions. So, only as valid as….(fill in here). Secondly, the government won’t be getting “paid” for a product or anything–only collecting taxes or fees hidden away in there somewhere. The word subsidy translates into this person’s money paying for that person’s electricity that they can’t afford so shouldn’t be using in the first place. Does it not? By the way how is that energy stuff playing out in Spain?