Most congress people, when they want research, turn to the Congressional Research Service, a organization that dates back to 1914 and prides itself on doing research that is “confidential, authoritative, objective and nonpartisan.”
And then there is a group of Republican legislators, organized as the Rural American Solutions Group, who held a telephone press conference to argue that the “Democrats’ Energy Tax” — that’s the GOP talking point for climate change legislation – will “make it more expensive for rural Americans to fertilize the crops, put fuel in the tractor and food on the table.”
They unveiled a map showing the state by state impact of cap-and-trade indicating that New York, California, New Jersey and a handful of other states will benefit, but that a vast swath of the south, Midwest and southwest will suffer.
The map, it turns out, came from the National Mining Association.
Blogger Vitor Zapanta at ThinkProgress.org has a digital image taken from the Republicans’ Power Point presentation showing that it was created by Peabody Coal, the nation’s biggest coal producer. Kate Sheppard of Grist did some sleuthing of her own and found out that the map appears on the mining association website. She notes that the research has a footnote explicitly saying that the calculations do not take into account the current version of Waxman-Markey, and, worse, that they cover only the costs of the legislation and not the benefits, including allocations back to utility companies to mitigate against price increases. This isn’t research at all; it’s advocacy.
This is what is politely called the influence of special interests in Washington.
The congress members peddling the NMA’s work were Frank Lucas (R-OK), Sam Graves (R-MO), and Doc Hastings (R-WA). Way to think for yourself, guys.
Link to original post
WilmotMcCutchen said:
- reply
- 0 points
Fri, 2009-06-26 12:48 — Wilmot McCutchenEd Reid said:
Marc,
See:
In Response to Congresswoman Virginia Foxx on Cap-and-Trade
- reply
- 0 points
Mon, 2009-06-22 17:01 — Ed ReidMarcGunther said:
Briefly:
"Pricing carbon" or a carbon tax won't necessarily increase the consumer cost of all kinds of energy. It will increase the cost of fossil fuels. It could well speed investment and competition that would drive down the cost (and increase the supply) of low-carbon energy, potentially including nuclear.
W-M will not save the globe, as you say. Some form of U.S. action is almost surely a necessary but not sufficient spur to a global treaty that is needed to save the globe.
No question that low/no carbon technologies are going to be expensive in the short run but it's very hard to predict the technology over the next decade or two. Just as it would have been hard to foresee development of today's world IT, communication and digital media in 1990.
I'm with you 100% on the need to think about the big picture. But that's not what the congressmemembers I was criticizing are doing. I think that is what the scientists who reported last week on the impacts of climate change on the U.S. were doing, and why we need to pay attention to what they said.
- reply
- 0 points
Sun, 2009-06-21 18:35 — Marc GuntherEd Reid said:
Marc,
There is no question that "pricing carbon" would increase the consumer cost of all forms of energy. There is also no question that a carbon tax would increase the consumer cost of all forms of energy.
There is no question that the major investments required to actually reduce US carbon emissions would increase the consumer cost of all forms of energy.
There is no question that W-M will not "save the globe". There is a very serious question whether global W-M would save the globe. There is an even more serious question whether global W-M would ever happen.
The reason W-M is now apparently going to provide free allowances is the recognition that otherwise the costs would be politically difficult.
One of the reasons China is asking for low cost access to advanced technology is their recognition that the low/no carbon technologies will be expensive.
China is rapidly expanding its energy sector. If low/no carbon technologies were preferrable, China would be wiser to use those technologies rather than coal for this expansion. Instead, they are investing in coal facilities with 40-60 year economic lives; and, increasing global carbon emissions at ~2% per year in the process.
It might be a really good idea to stand back from the issue and try to get the big picture.
- reply
- 0 points
Sun, 2009-06-21 13:38 — Ed ReidMarcGunther said:
We should treat all of their claims with skepticism.
But I don't think these labels are all that useful.
Yes, I know I called the coal industry a "special industry."
So call me inconsistent. :)
Better than labels or shorthand, let's debate these issues on the merits. In the case of the blogpost above, I found it disturbing that the Congress members were relying entirely on what appears to be outdated and incomplete mining industry research to make the case that Waxman-Markey was bad for consumers.
- reply
- 0 points
Sun, 2009-06-21 11:12 — Marc GuntherEd Reid said:
Would you consider Generation Investment Management (Al Gore) a "special interest"?
How about the Chicago Climate Exchange?
The American Wind Energy Association?
The Solar Energy Industries Association?
The ethanol producers and the farmers who supply them?
The Climate Action Partnership (in full CYA mode)?
Enquiring minds want to know. :-)
- reply
- 0 points
Sun, 2009-06-21 10:22 — Ed ReidMarcGunther said:
But there is a significant difference between environmental groups and the National Mining Association. Environmental groups, whether you like them or agree with them or not, are advocating on behalf of the environment. They may be less attentive to costs than you would like, or they may have more faith in command-and-control government than I do, but their loyalty is to a benefit (a clean environment) that will be good for us all. The mining association, by contrast, advocates on behalf of a a narrow, particular interest.
I generally try to avoid using loaded terms like "public interest" and "special interest" but in this case, I think "special interest" fits.
- reply
- 0 points
Sat, 2009-06-20 15:20 — Marc GuntherEd Reid said:
And, of course, we all know that the drafting of Waxman-Markey was completely devoid of the "influence of special interests in Washington", assuming that environmental activist groups are not "special interests in Washington" and that the UN does not represent "special interests in Washington".
Unfortunately, we do not yet know what W-M will look like when it emerges from the "sausage grinder". Neither its costs not its benefits are fully detailed yet. Thus, they cannot be subject to rigorous analysis.
On the other hand, everyone is studiously avoiding any discussion of the investments which would be required by industry and consumers to actually achieve the carbon emissions reductions which would be required by 2050. My estimate is ~$700 billion per year over the period. What's yours?
- reply
- 0 points
Sat, 2009-06-20 09:00 — Ed ReidPost new comment