The Costs
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) cost analysis of Waxman-Markey estimated that by 2020 each U.S. household would pay $160 per year and that the cost would rise to $1,100 per year by 2030 for a carbon-reduced economy. Other analyses found the numbers to be significantly higher (the Heritage Foundation predicts numbers 10 times larger), but let’s go with the EPA numbers. Under this plan—which includes many idealized and controversial caveats, assumptions, and footnotes too numerous to discuss—the EPA concluded that the Waxman-Markey carbon cap-and-trade system will cost up to 0.8% of our economic consumption by 2050 if it is not enacted.
The Ratio
The IPCC AR4 report concluded that a 4C temperature increase will cost the global community up to 3% of global economic output. Let’s use that ratio to scale our numbers to determine the benefits (actually, avoided economic and environmental damage) of carbon controls.
If we use a 0.1C temperature rise by 2100, then the U.S. will be hit with 0.1 divided by 4 equals 0.08% decrease in economic output from a non-carbon-controlled economy. In other words, the costs of compliance (0.8% drop in economic consumption) is 10 times the benefits received (0.08% temperature reduction). My quick and dirty analysis certainly has many flaws, but the result remains clear: A cost-benefit ratio of 10 is a very poor investment by any reasonable standard.
The day of the climate scientist as rock star has passed. A Gallup poll survey conducted March 4–7 found that 48% of Americans now believe that the “seriousness of global warming is exaggerated,” up from 31% in 1997. I expect this survey percentage to continue its rise as the public learns more about climate science irregularities and the cost of the EPA’s CO2 rules.
For professional politicians, these poll results probably carry more weight than a thorough business case analysis of the APA. However, the recent primary results show the public’s interest in supporting successful businesspersons that will appreciate a good case study over professional politician.
Be it poll-driven politics or business acumen, I expect our current and future Washington representatives will soon understand that carbon cap and trade is just another poorly timed energy tax and a legislative non-starter.
—Dr. Robert Peltier, PE, is POWER’s editor-in-chief.
Email
Comments
Print
Reuse
Comments (1)
I notice that you are still talking about "climate science irregularities" as if they were fact. "Climategate" never had any factual basis and every investigation into it has found nothing. No scientific papers or finding have been retracted.
You wrote about a Gallup poll of public opinion as if that meant something ( but I understand that the percentage who believe that Elvis still lives has dropped ). I'd suggest that people tend to believe what they can see. Public opinion of the dangers of tobacco smoking didn't really change until practically everyone knew a smoker who had lung cancer -- the science was always successfully portrayed as being in doubt. As temperatures keep rising, the sea ice and glaciers keep disappearing, denial belief will fall into into "Elvis belief" range of public opinion.