The Uncertainty of Waxman-Markey

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee held a hearing this morning to examine the Waxman-Markey climate bill's potential costs and benefits. But when the senators asked direct questions about the bill's impact, the government witnesses often had difficulty answering. As one witness said, "There's a significant degree of uncertainty."

In fact, few straight answers were provided today, because federal agencies have calculated the bill's costs and benefits using models which contain a variety of assumptions. For example, in a discussion between Sen. John McCain and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Dr. Reid Harvey, it was revealed that EPA's model assumes that the United States would build nuclear power plants to reduce carbon emissions. Yet as Sen. McCain pointed out, there are no provisions in the bill that would hasten the construction of U.S. nuclear power plants.

There were, however, a few eyebrow-raising facts revealed during the hearing. Sen. Maria Cantwell confirmed that the bill would send $1.4 trillion overseas in so-called "international offsets." Dr. Douglas Elmendorf of the Congressional Budget Office revealed that the cost of administrating the Waxman-Markey bill was estimated at more than $8 billion. And he confirmed that his model shows a significant number of jobs would be lost in fossil-fuel intensive industries and in certain areas of the country. Dr. Elmendorf also said that if other countries didn't reduce their greenhouse gas emissions along with the United States, more manufacturing would go overseas.

These pronouncements and the level of uncertainty in the administration's projections caused some noticeable concern among the senators. Sen. Lisa Murkowski said, "We can't be implementing policies that are a wish and a prayer."

Sen. Bob Corker called the Waxman-Markey bill a "Rube Goldberg system" of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Sen. Jeff Sessions rhymed, "Oh, what a tangled web we make when first we decide to regulate."

And Sen. Sam Brownback stated, "Investment and innovation are better than taxes and regulation."

If you also are concerned about the Waxman-Markey bill and the similar Kerry-Boxer bill, take action now by contacting your senators.

Comments

Related

Blog Posts

Shale Energy in Ohio = Jobs, Economic Hope

More evidence that shale energy in Ohio is looming as an economic dynamo. First, an op-ed from the Coshocton Tribune discusses wa...

Blog Posts

On Disclosure Rule, SEC Should Heed White House

Common sense should be applied to a federal transparency proposal – the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s pending Section 1...

Blog Posts

Higher Supply = Higher Prices or NRDC Flunks Econ 101

Who could have imagined the day would come when the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) crafted a report focused on relieving...

Blog Posts

Massachusetts, Jobs and the Shale Energy Revolution

Interesting report in the Boston Globe about how a ripple of economic benefits from shale natural gas development is reaching a non...

Blog Posts

Keystone XL: Safety, Reliability and Jobs

TransCanada President and CEO Russ Girling has a letter to the editor in the New York Times after the newspaper’s recent editorial...

Blog Posts

Stop-Gap Energy vs. Stable Energy

Scroll down a bit in this wrap-up of last weekend’s G8 Summit from The Hill newspaper, and you’ll see that the president and other...

Blog Posts

In an Election Year, Time to Talk Energy

Just a thought, but how great would it be if one of this fall’s presidential debates focused solely on energy issues? Past presid...

Blog Posts

Unused Leases? You’ve Got to be Joking!

The warmed-over claim that oil and natural gas companies aren’t using large numbers of leases on public lands is like a Mark Twain...

Blog Posts

Hansen’s Oil Sands Facts are Lost in Space

To hear it from environmental activist James Hansen, development of the oil sands in Canada will usher in the apocalypse, “game ove...

Stay Connected