Always wrong, never in doubt
The Center for American Progress has a nice analysis of the history of incorrect predictions by the utility industry, which invariably overestimate the cost of environment regulations. Daniel J. Weiss and Nick Kong, in an article titled, “Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me,” which begins:
Recent studies by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, and the National Mining Association are predicting a rate increase for electricity if the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) becomes law. These studies–just like others we have seen in the past on acid rain legislation and other bills that address pressing environmental issues–are meant to spark fear in the hearts of legislators and paralyze them with worries about an angry public blaming them for skyrocketing electricity prices and other ills.
These types of predictions have been proven wrong time and time again. Public officials should ignore the rerun of these scare tactics.
You’ll want to read the whole article to catch the terrific table that shows how electricity rates have dropped substantially since 1990, even though the industry had predicted the Clean Air Act would increase rates.
Related Posts:
April 26th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
but this isn’t enough. how we prevent a transition economy from going into the same speculative, unproductive tailspin as the three bubbles we’re exiting?
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908
look at what we didn’t get from the three bubbles:
* the dotcom boom didn’t give us fiber optic internet and fast wireless in every city.
* enron didn’t give us a smart grid with distributed generation.
* the housing bubble didn’t give us better housing for good prices.
* “health care.”
would anyone like to stick around to see the end product of wall street’s climate effort?
April 26th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
It seemed like we would have an opportunity to better understand the economics of the set of reasonable solutions listed in the chart by the McKinsey company that was published here some time ago.
Art Rosenfeld used this chart in some presentations as well.
Apparently this chart was from an analysis that was funded by the California Energy Commission.
Why is the analysis that explains the chart entries as well as the development of these numbers not available to the public? Or if it is, where can it be accessed?
Thanks, Jim Bullis
April 26th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
So what if electric rates go up (some)?
Saying that your policy recommendations are cheap or cheaper is the wrong issue with regard to global warming as the technologies used to scrub S0x and NOx are much cheaper than a largely new energy system required to cut GHG emissions. Using expense as an argument against measures that can prevent the biosphere from becoming largely uninhabitable is like saying: “I’m not going to undertake this lifesaving operation because I can’t afford it.” Penny-wise but pound-foolish.
Exaggerating the expense of climate saving measures is a tactic that should be called attention to but the implication that all these wedges are not going to cost much is also foolish: we are talking about a massive and very worthwhile infrastructure project over a period of 3 decades that has to paid for by someone.
The false assumption is “no one is ever going to ask anyone for money for this (because it puts one (in the current political climate) in an uncomfortable position)”. Please don’t play that game because you’re going to lose the argument.