Hope and Change Obama Style

[dude1394]

Damn department of energy...Why can't they see how Obama's environmental costs really aren't costs but will create jobs.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer...ecsummary.html

The potential costs to America from cap-and-trade policies are enormous. The Department of Energy estimates that S. 2191, the Warner-Lieberman cap-and-trade proposal, will increase the cost of coal for power generation by between 161% and 413%. DOE estimates GDP losses (see chart) over the 21-year period they forecast, at between $444 billion and $1.308 trillion, with particular damage to the manufacturing sector. (This gives some hope that organized labor will, in a rare occurrence, oppose Democratic leaders on this issue.) Winegarden estimates that this bill could increase unemployment by 2.7% or about 4 million jobs. In fact, companies are already preparing to avoid increased level and volatility of American energy prices by setting up factories and partnerships in countries which won’t be subject to cap-and-trade restrictions…proving with real-world behavior of producers that no carbon-limiting regulation can succeed if it is not universal.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Damn department of energy...Why can't they see how Obama's environmental costs really aren't costs but will create jobs.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer...ecsummary.html

is the section of the report you are referring to?

S. 2191 increases the cost of using energy, which reduces real economic output, reduces purchasing power, and lowers aggregate demand for goods and services. The result is that projected real gross domestic product (GDP) generally falls relative to the Reference Case. Adverse economic impacts generally increase over time as higher cost emissions abatement options are required as emissions caps become more stringent while population and economic activity levels continue to grow. Total discounted GDP losses over the 2009 to 2030 time period range from $444 billion (-0.2 percent) to $1,308 billion (-0.6 percent) across the S. 2191 cases (Table ES3). Similarly, the cumulative discounted losses for personal consumption range from $546 billion (-0.2 percent) to $1,425 billion (-0.6 percent). GDP losses in 2030, the last year explicitly modeled in this analysis, range from $27 billion to $163 billion (-0.1 to -0.8 percent) while consumption losses in that year range from $58 billion to $149 billion (-0.4 to -1.1 percent). Economic impacts are largest when it is assumed that key low-emissions technologies including nuclear, fossil with CCS, and various renewables are not developed and deployed in a timeframe consistent with the emissions reduction requirements and international offsets are not available.

gdp losses over a 21 year period as low as 2/10 of a percent? and 6/10 if nothing is "developed and deployed" in response?

my expectation is there will be new developments. that is what america has done successfully, and america will do in response to the change in how we are consuming/using these energy sources. have you lost faith in american ingenuity and innovation?

these numbers make the decision to invest easy. yes to greenhouse gas reduction.

last, this study doesn't discuss the costs of doing nothing, those numbers could be many times those above.