Two of the top climate reporters in the country, the Post‘s Juliet Eilperin and the NYT’s Andy Revkin, have written articles on EPA’s endangerment finding that I think are quite confusing and misleading.

Eilperin’s piece, the front page story in today’s Post, is “EPA Says Emissions Are Threat To Public:  Finding Could Lead to Greenhouse Gas Limits.”  An otherwise pretty solid article contains this inaccurate and highly misleading third paragraph:

What happens next is unclear. The agency’s proposed finding is likely to intensify pressure on Congress to pass legislation that would limit greenhouse gases, as President Obama, many lawmakers and some industry leaders prefer. But cap-and-trade legislation, which would limit emissions and allow emitters to trade pollution allowances, is fiercely opposed by a coalition of Republicans and Democrats from fossil-fuel-dependent Midwestern states who fear that such a system would raise energy prices and hurt the nation’s economy.

Huh?  First off, cap-and-trade is fiercely opposed by virtually all Congressional Republicans from everywhere in the country (with the possible exception of Maine) — see “House GOP pledge to fight all action on climate” and “”Hill conservatives reject all 3 climate strategies and embrace Rush Limbaugh.”

And while many GOPers do repeat dubious talking points about the economic impact(see “MIT Professor tells GOP to stop ‘misrepresenting’ his work and inflating the cost to families of cap-and-trade by a factor of 10“), a large fraction simply deny the overwhelming science that makes clear global warming is a grave but preventable threat to the health and welfare of Americans.

So the GOP half of Eilperin’s final sentence above is just misleading.

Second, I just don’t think it is accurate to say “cap-and-trade legislation … is fiercely opposed by … Democrats from fossil-fuel-dependent Midwestern states.”  There’s no question that many Midwestern Democrats have concerns about cap-and-trade (see “Moderate Senate Dems build ‘Gang of 16″² to influence cap-and-trade bill“).  And those concerns may well translate into provisions that water down the final bill.  But to create the impression that a significant number of Midwestern Democrats fiercely oppose cap-and-trade outright is misleading.  I expect a cap-and trade bill will pass Congress in the next 12 to 15 months — with the support of most midwestern Dems.

Small note to Eilperin re phrase “fossil-fuel-dependent Midwestern states”:  All states are currently fossil fuel dependent.  All states are addicted to oil and other fossil fuels, which, as EPA found, threatens our health and well-being.

Revkin’s blog post on the finding is even more confusing to the public, starting with the headline and opening lines:

Read more

Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH)

First-term congressman Bob Latta (R-OH) believes that President Obama’s energy reform policy means that Obama “has declared war on Ohio and Indiana.” Latta, who won his seat with the support of $34,250 in oil and gas money, claimed that setting standards for global warming pollution is tantamount to a military invasion of his state:

We could lose manufacturing jobs left and right. It kind of looks like the Obama administration has declared war on Ohio and Indiana. I’m concerned because we’ve got to keep people working. We want to keep people here.

Even using the industry’s own worst-case scenarios for the economic effects of cap and trade legislation, Ohio’s citizens would gain thousands of jobs and enjoy healthy economic growth. In 2007, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation commissioned a report on the economics of mandatory carbon reductions, using pessimistic assumptions about the flexibility of the economy to use renewable energy and energy efficiency. An analysis by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of NAM/ACCF’s study of cap and trade finds:

– According to the ACCF/NAM “high-cost case,” Ohio’s economy would grow 59%, while carbon emissions would fall by 36%.

– Under the ACCF/NAM high-cost case forecast under a carbon cap program, in 2030 average Ohioans will be about 58 percent richer than in 2007.

– With the increase in state revenues over time, Ohio could reduce the average classroom size in school system by 20 percent, and still increase support for all other state and local services by 54 percent.

– Under the ACCF/NAM high-cost case forecast, 6.31 million people will have jobs in 2030, an 11.8 percent increase.

“This forecast takes no account of the increased job opportunities that will result through investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy,” the PERI authors note. “Clean energy investments produce roughly 3.5 times more jobs per dollar than spending on oil, coal, and natural gas, because they require relatively more spending on people and lesson equipment, and because they require fewer imports.”

These jobs would come from companies like First Solar of Perrysburg, Great Lakes Window of Walbridge, Northwest Ohio Wind Energy of Grover Hill, and American Ag Fuels of Defiance, among many other innovative green-economy manufacturers in Rep. Latta’s district.

The Bush-Cheney pro-pollution economy, by contrast, has been devastating for Ohio: more than 1,087 companies shut down or had mass layoffs, costing 180,264 Ohioans their jobs, even as Ohio was hit by severe droughts in 2002, 2005, and 2007 — as well as 2007′s catastrophic flood.

Perhaps Rep. Latta meant to say that President Obama’s clean energy plan is declaring war on Ohio’s economic struggles.

“There are numerous services that allow you to pay into a fund offset your carbon footprint. But how does it actually work?“  [Click to enlarge.]

Related Posts:

• You can call a rip-offset a CDM project, but it’s still a rip-offset
• Q: What is the difference between carbon offsets and mortgage-backed securites?