The Heritage Foundation, the leading think tank of the conservative stagnation, is also a leading source of disinformation on climate science and economics (see “Heritage pushes ‘completely untrue’ attack on clean-energy jobs with a panel bought and paid for by dirty energy“). They are so retrograde that they even oppose energy efficiency. The Center for American Progress’s Daniel Sanchez has an update.
Last Friday Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) published an editorial in Politico criticizing the current House climate and energy bill. He claimed that it would increase energy costs and “kill approximately 1.1 million jobs by 2035.” Issa based this projection solely on a flawed study by the Heritage Foundation that is at best incomplete and at worst a distraction during this most critical period of debate. This is simply one in a series of distortions of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) by the right aimed at deceiving the American people and frightening them with cooked numbers, incomplete analysis, and selective economic models which bear little connection to reality.
Most importantly, Heritage concedes a key flaw in their reasoning: they do not include in their accounting of the bill’s impacts three of its four major provisions: a renewable energy standard, energy efficiency standards, and transition assistance for consumers. Instead, they rely on a private projection, by IHS, for their baseline scenario aimed solely at the cap and trade provisions of the bill. As a result, they strongly underestimate the projected growth in renewable energy, natural gas use, energy efficiency and even carbon capture and storage that this bill will create. Surprisingly, Heritage even discounts the growth of nuclear power in their analysis, despite their unwavering support for its expansion. The result? A disservice to their allies in the Republican Party, like Representative Issa, by providing a deeply flawed premise for his editorial.
Heritage justifies such omissions simply by asserting that they are inefficient and won’t achieve any consumer savings. But they do this without providing any answer to the ample studies demonstrating that such energy efficiency standards could save consumers $3900 per household by 2030. In fact, the only complete analysis of the Waxman-Markey legislation to date by the EPA reaches drastically different conclusions: this bill costs the average family only $90 per year, or, less than the cost of one postage stamp per day.
Heritage continues its incomplete analysis by failing to consider any of the bill’s cost containment mechanisms, such as credit banking or a strategic reserve, and never considers the costs of inaction on climate change. Instead, in a defense of their study, they cavalierly side-step serious consideration of the costs of inaction, which include catastrophic effects to most aspects of the global economy. In contrast, most credible analysis of fighting climate change shows that the economic impact is small, and even beneficial to the American economy.
It is telling that the Heritage Foundation relies on incomplete analysis in their broadside against this bill and uses economic models whose details are inaccessible to public scrutiny. Such broadsides do not enlighten and improve the public debate over one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to come before the congress. Rather, such work distracts us from a comprehensive and sober consideration of how we will forge the best way forward in response to climate change and put our economy on a sustainable and secure path.
–Daniel Sanchez
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
At least they admit that we are experiencing GW.
Frankly, I am skeptical of all sorts of economic projections on addressing the climate change issue ranging from that we will make more money that way than BAU to trying to do it will destroy the economy. I know some economic studies will be better than others, but to me the atmosphere/ocean system with lots of known physics seems easier to project accurately than economies driven to a great degree ultimately by human feelings. That said, still…
There are continually these numbers thrown out by the likes of the HF saying addressing climate change will cost this much in money and jobs. I have thought at least for the American audience there should be more converse noting of the monetary cost of NOT addressing climate change. Citing the problems with the info like from the HF and describing the scientific picture with rising sea level and more 90+F days seems good, but especially as the growing debt has become a hot topic lately I have thought also turning around and reporting projected costs because of climate change would be better.
Something sharp and succinct like that in 2060, 2100, whatever, if we continue BAU the average American family figures to be X% poorer than if we move to stabilize at 450ppm. I think something simple like that may resonate more and more widely in the US than even things like talking about permanent Dust Bowl, ending of CA central valley agriculture, more heat-related deaths, etc.
But I wonder… Are there just not any good references that can say something like that? How much work has there been done in that regard? Are the harsher economic impacts too far down the road to really register? Are there too many factors and too much uncertainty to make a decent analy-guess? Does it more come down to losing not just money but the way of life with disappearing species, agriculture, etc.?
Actually, they don’t even admit GW, they have all these ridiculous bloggers highlighting studies paid for by big oil that deny GW.