Willing to Pay $200 a Month for Climate Legislation?

A recent poll shows that the more Americans learn about climate legislation, the less they like it. Especially when they realize that it will take money out of their pockets.

How much money? About $2,300 per year per average U.S. household, according to the American Farm Bureau. That's nearly $200 a month.

The Farm Bureau calculated this figure by adding the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) estimate of higher energy costs ($1,870 per year) under the Waxman-Markey bill with its own estimate of the legislation's impact on food prices. The total cost: up to $200 billion per year for U.S. consumers, which equates to a 15 percent hike in personal income taxes.

"Can you [imagine] how consumers in this country would scream if they knew they would be hit with a 15 percent hike in their personal income taxes?" asks Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau.

Bob says consumers "have a big stake" in the proposed climate bills. Take the legislation's potential impact on food supplies. He says farmers are likely to produce less food as their energy costs rise, and some could be tempted to plant trees as carbon offsets rather than grow crops. Furthermore, he says this legislation is being debated at a time when international organizations are wondering how to raise food production by 70 percent to feed an estimated world population of 9.1 billion people in 2050.

"We're heading in the wrong direction with this bill," Bob says.

Analyses by the Farm Bureau and others indicate that the climate legislation under consideration could make everyone in America poorer and take food off our plates, while shifting emissions from the United States to other countries where environmental protection is less stringent.

Voice your concern about the bills now by joining Energy Citizens and taking action.

Comments

Related

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

Watch Live: Energy in an Election Year

.blog #main .post-body .video-wrapper { width:500px; height:418px; padding:0; overflow:visible; margin:0 auto 18px; } ....

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...

Blog Posts

Oil and Energy Security

The Congressional Budget Office has a new report out on energy security that’s sure to spark conversation.  Much of that will seem...

Blog Posts

Going Beyond Rhetoric on Natural Gas

Over on the White House Blog, there’s genuine enthusiasm for natural gas, and for good reason.  Natural gas is clean-burning, affor...

Blog Posts

Job Creation To-Do List? Here’s Ours

Here’s the president talking about job creation Tuesday in Albany, N.Y.: “Now, we know the true engine of job creation in this...

Blog Posts

To the President’s Ear: Build the Keystone XL

In an interview with Fox Business Channel this week, billionaire Warren Buffett voiced support for construction of the Keystone XL...

Blog Posts

The Demand for Energy and Steel

There’s a good story going on in Lorain, Ohio, a steel town that has seen ups and downs. Thanks to the surge in production of energ...

Blog Posts

Facts, Not Excuses, Should Guide Decision on Re-Routed...

It’s good to hear that TransCanada has submitted its new application for a presidential permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline. T...

Blog Posts

All For Efficiency

A recent post on the White House Blog updates the administration’s effort to see federal agencies make at least $2 billion in energ...

Stay Connected