The others, one from Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Independent from
Connecticut, and Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, another from
Lieberman and Sen. John Warner, Republican of Virginia, are more
draconian. The former would cut emissions to 16% below the 2007 output,
the latter 44%.
None would affect climate change. All, however, would carry heavy
economic losses. Naturally, the environmentalists, having pushed the
environment down their list of concerns, like that.
It's no surprise that the most expensive of the three is the
Warner-Lieberman bill. The Environmental Protection Agency reckons it
could cost as much as $3 trillion a year in lost GDP. In an economy of
roughly $14 trillion, that's a significant loss.
But even the Bingaman-Specter legislation, the least costly of the three, would hit the economy for about $1 trillion a year.
Much of the pain would be caused by increases in gasoline and
electricity prices. The Science Applications International Corporation
calculates that Lieberman-Warner by 2030 would boost gasoline prices
from 60% to 144% while electricity prices would be up 77% to 129%.
Hit hardest by higher energy prices: The poor. The National Center
for Policy Analysis points out that energy costs consume 15% of the
poorest households' income while the average household spends 3% on
energy. Who is going to feel the pinch more?
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that even a 15% reduction
in carbon emissions by 2010 — a third of the cut required by
Lieberman-Warner — through a cap-and-trade scheme would trim the
disposable income of the poor by an additional 3.3%. The hit for the
richest Americans: 1.7%.
All this economic wreckage done in the name of reducing
environmentally benign greenhouse gases by men who should know better —
and likely do. But they have politics to think about, as well as
invitations to Georgetown cocktail parties that probably are not being
sent to GOP Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, who in his skepticism of global
warming is performing a valuable public service. Source