I was working about the Cash for Clunkers bill (where you can exchangeyour old car for money voucher for a new supposedly moreenvironment-friendly car) and it was more complicated than Ithought…I need to do more research about that.
So for now let’s go back to the American Clean and Energy Security (ACES) bill where a new report from the CongressionalBudget Office (CBO) estimated the net overall cost per householdnationwide and the net costs or benefits that would be realized byhouseholds in various income quintiles if the bill would be implementedin 2020 (based on 2010 dollar value).
The ACES bill aims to cutglobal warming pollution by 17% compared to 2005 levels in 2020, by 42%in 2030, and by 83% in 2050, through various regulatory measuresincluding carbon cap and trade (or tax).
CBOexamines the average cost per household that would result fromimplementing the greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program under the bill, aswell as how that cost would be spread among households with differentlevels of income.
CBO estimates that the net annual economy-widecost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion — orabout $175 per household. The figure includes the cost of restructuringthe production and use of energy and of payments made to foreignentities under the program, but CBO said it does not include theeconomic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in GHG emissionsand the associated slowing of climate change.
CBO saidhouseholds in the lowest income quintile would see an average netbenefit of about $40 in 2020, while households in the highest incomequintile would see a net cost of $245. Overall net costs would average0.2% of households’ after-tax income.
According to the think tank group Center for American Progress,many conservatives (not normally known for concern about low-incomepeople, they said) are opposing the bill reasoning how the bill willaffect the poor.
“The bottomline is that CBO predicts the net costs of the global warming reductionprogram in H.R. 2454 will be relatively modest. The lowest-incomehouseholds would actually gain under the bill. The second-lowest incomehouseholds would face average daily costs of only 11 cents. And energyefficiency measures alone would save the average household nearly asmuch money as the pollution reduction programs would cost under thisbill.”
The group accused the bill’s opponents of engagingin statistical demagoguery by citing horrendous dollar figures in anattempt to scare enough representatives to defeat the bill’s passage.
addthis_pub = ‘greenchicgeek’;