Climate Progress

# Weekly Standard Compounds \$3100 GOP Lie With A \$3900 Lie

John Reilly’s April 14th letter to Rep. John Boehner (R-OH). Reilly explains that the GOP continues to misrepresent his study, which found that annual price for the average household for strong cap and trade would start at \$65 in 2015, averaging “about \$800″ through 2050.

Accusing Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist John Reilly of using “fuzzy math” and “fuzzy logic,” the Weekly Standard has further distorted an MIT study of the economics of carbon regulation. By making an economically unsupportable assumption, Weekly Standard editor John McCormack transforms a \$3100 lie promulgated by House Republicans into a \$3900 lie:

While \$800 is significantly more than Reilly’s original estimate of \$215 (not to mention more than Obama’s middle-class tax cut), it turns out that Reilly is still low-balling the cost of cap and trade by using some fuzzy logic. In reality, cap and trade could cost the average household more than \$3,900 per year.

In reality, the energy economist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who co-authored the “Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals” report does a better job of interpreting “reality” than McCormack. It’s McCormack’s logic that is “fuzzy.”

## THE \$3100 LIE

The MIT study estimates the average value of the carbon market over a thirty-five year period to be \$366 billion per year. If you were to divide that value by the number of households in America, you get \$3,128 per household. Asserting that the value of the market is equivalent to the economic cost of the policy – which one has to do to claim that the cost of cap and trade is \$3100 per household — requires the assumption that this revenue stream magically disappears somewhere. Reilly attempted to explain this to the Weekly Standard:

It is not really a matter of returning it or not, no matter what happens this revenue gets recycled into the economy some way. In that regard, whether the money is specifically returned to households with a check that says “your share of GHG auction revenue”, used to cut someone’s taxes, used to pay for some government services that provide benefit to the public, or simply used to offset the deficit (therefore meaning lower government debt and lower taxes sometime in the future when that debt comes due) is largely irrelevant in the calculation of the “average” household. Each of those ways of using the revenue has different implications for specific households but the “average” affect is still the same.

For example: Exxon Mobil became the largest corporation in the world by raking in \$442.9 billion in revenue in 2008, “costing” the average American household \$3,785.

Is the existence of Exxon Mobil a \$3,800 tax on American families? No, because most of its revenues are redistributed in the economy — as oil rig employment, petroleum products (which fuel transportation and trade), and of course, multimillion-dollar salaries for its top executives and massive profits for its shareholders.

## THE \$3900 LIE

The MIT study of the economic effects of cap and trade did estimate the “welfare cost” of the transition from an unsustainable pollution-based economy to a clean-energy economy. As Reilly explained to McCormack (to no avail), this “cost to the economy involves all those actions people have to take to reduce their use of fossil fuels or find ways to use them without releasing [greenhouse gases]“:

So that might involve spending money on insulating your home, or buying a more expensive hybrid vehicle to drive, or electric utilities substituting gas (or wind, nuclear, or solar) instead of coal in power generation, or industry investing in more efficient motors or production processes, etc. with all of these things ending up reflected in the costs of good and services in the economy.

The MIT study found that this “welfare cost” is tiny with respect to the size of the economy, even with strong reductions in global warming pollution and a very high price for carbon permits. The change in total welfare is less than one-tenth of one percent in 2015, never rising above two percent for the forty-year run of their model. Averaging out the “price” of a clean-energy economy versus the status quo over those forty years, Reilly found the cost for “the average household just in 2015 is about \$80 per family, or \$65 if more appropriately stated in present value terms,” and the “present value cost per average current household through 2050″ is “about \$800.”

McCormack decided to add \$3100 to \$800 and get \$3900, even though Reilly told him one has to assume the carbon market value gets flushed down the toilet:

If you took the revenue and flushed it down the toilet or burned it, the cost would then be the Republican estimate plus the cost I estimate. But that is quite unrealistic, as the auction revenue will be recycled into the economy some way.

Using McCormack’s logic, we could take our \$3,800 Exxon Mobil “tax” and then add in, say the \$855 per household per year spent on the war in Iraq (given a lowball estimate of \$100 billion in total expenditures per year) as the welfare cost of the existence of Exxon Mobil. Adding \$3785 to \$855 returns a figure of \$4640 per average household.

Saying “Exxon Mobil is a \$4640 tax” would be silly and intellectually irresponsible. But that’s essentially what McCormack is doing, as is the once-respected Heritage Foundation, who is promoting McCormack’s nonsensical \$3900 figure. Read more

# Will Bailed Out Banks Prevent Credit Card Reform From Passing?

Today, President Barack Obama is meeting with executives from the credit card industry, in order to advocate “more legal protection for the millions of Americans who use credit cards.” As CBS reported, “the credit card issuers include the same big banks – Bank of America, Citicorp and JPMorgan Chase – that have gotten billions in bailout money meant to stimulate consumer lending.” Other participants reportedly include representatives from Capital One, Visa, and Mastercard.

This comes one day after the House Financial Services Committee approved legislation aimed at curbing abusive practices employed by credit card issuers:

The House measure would restrict card companies’ ability to raise rates on existing customers and ban certain controversial practices, such as applying payments to the portion of a borrower’s balance with the lowest interest rate. It would also bar issuers from charging interest on parts of the balance that were already paid on time, a practice known as double-cycle billing.

The committee vote was 48-19, with 9 Republicans joining all voting Democrats in supporting the measure. 19 Republicans voted against it. The bill (HR 627) will now move to the House floor, where it is expected to pass.

However, according to the New York Times, the proposal is “in jeopardy because of lobbying by banks and their trade groups, particularly in the Senate.” “Having won some early skirmishes by teaming with Republican allies, the banks now appear to have the upper hand and may wind up killing — or at least substantially diluting” the measure, the Times noted.

As Chris at Americablog wrote, “there’s no question more consumers could have been smarter about how they deal with easy credit, but the same could also be said about Wall Street, yet they received a fat bailout.” And as TARP watchdog Elizabeth Warren pointed out, bailed out banks hiking rates and fees amounts to “asking taxpayers to pay twice.”

Indeed, there’s plenty of blame to go around when it comes to the amount of debt Americans are carrying, but that doesn’t mean that curbing abuse is any less important. In fact, the Federal Reserve was planning to implement many of these reforms anyway, and one of the reasons that industry is so concerned by the House’s bill is that “it believes a law would be harder to overturn than a [Federal Reserve] regulation.” So if given the chance, will the Senate vote to protect consumers, or will it bend to the will of bailed out banks?

##### Update

Robert Reich has more on “the great credit card battle to come.”

Climate Progress

# Broad Progressive Coalition Announces Clean Energy Media Blitz

A new campaign to pass President Obama’s clean energy economy plan is launching today with the release of new national and local ads. The campaign, a joint venture of SEIU, League of Conservation Voters, MoveOn.org Political Action, VoteVets, Center for American Progress Action Fund, the Blue Green Alliance, Environmental Defense Fund and others, will be a coordinated effort to urge members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to pass President Obama’s green economic agenda.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has taken up comprehensive clean energy legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, that Obama administration officials praised in hearings yesterday. The committee will be voting on the legislation in the coming weeks.

The first ads released are from the League of Conservation Voters and MoveOn, sharing an optimistic vision of “clean energy jobs.” Local ads target members of the energy committee in key states, such as Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX).

ANNOUNCER: America must end our economic crisis and dependence on foreign oil. The answer: A clean energy jobs bill, which could create millions of American jobs. But if we don’t invest in American manufacturing, those jobs could go overseas.

OBAMA: I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders. And I know you don’t either.

ANNOUNCER: Make our energy clean. Make it in America.

Watch it:

League of Conservation Voters: “Tell Mike Rogers It’s Time to Start Believing in America Again” (local): Read more

Switch to Mobile