In the News

Some have tried to assess such impacts. In a study of energy-climate legislation last year, the nonpartisan Institute for Policy Integrity found that the House bill would generate between $750 billion and $1 trillion in total benefits between 2012 and 2050.

But Scott Holladay, an economics fellow who works on climate issues for the Institute of Policy Integrity cautioned that while he agrees that meeting biomass demands will involve cutting down whole trees and lead to increased emissions, the numbers in the report should be taken with a grain of salt. “My main concern is this a very static look at the issue, it doesn’t take into account the feedback effect,” Holladay said. “It doesn’t seem like they take into account as forest becomes more scarce the price of wood will go up and the price of this as fuel will go up as well,” potentially prompting switches to other energy sources, he said.

Some consumers would see modest cost increases — we’re talking about literally $7 a month — but the legislation includes mechanisms to help consumers offset those costs. As Dave Roberts explained, “Cost is simply not a credible reason to oppose a carbon cap.”

Michael Livermore, executive director of NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity, argues that leaving these substantial benefits out is a huge mistake. “It’s like telling someone in the market for a home to pay $200,000 without telling them the property is a mansion on Fifth Avenue or a mountain ranch in Colorado,” he wrote in Grist.

As Michael Livermore wrote last week, the “all costs no benefits” method of analysis utterly distorts lawmakers’ perspectives. Obviously if the costs of unrestrained climate change were included, the bill would look like a screaming bargain.

As Michael Livermore wrote last week, the “all costs no benefits” method of analysis utterly distorts lawmakers’ perspectives. Obviously if the costs of unrestrained climate change were included, the bill would look like a screaming bargain.

Despite the loud cries to the contrary, there is an international consensus that the greenhouse gases that spur climate change have the potential to wreak havoc if aggressive action is not taken. A survey of 289 top economists released by New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity in November found that most believe it would be cheaper to act now to prevent the worst potential effects of climate change than to deal with them later.

Consider this a plan that allows the nation to set aside money in advance to pay for these disasters, instead of putting the burden on taxpayers. To cover those costs now, Congress allocates disaster relief money, or the federal government absorbs the cost some other way. For example, Katrina caused the National Flood Insurance Program to rack up $19 billion in debt. The program borrowed the money from the U.S. Treasury and has no plan to pay it back, according to the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University Law School.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s EPA resolution, set for a 6 hour Senate showdown today, is really about the legitimacy of climate science, not the appropriate role for EPA in controlling greenhouse gases. The Senator argues that she wants the legislative branch to deal with the climate change issue instead of a federal agency. But the text of her one-sentence resolution disapproves of EPA’s scientific finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

This afternoon, the EPA is said to be sending its economic analysis of the climate bill proposed by Kerry and Lieberman to the Senators’ offices. It’s a scoring of how the legislation would affect the American economy. Hopefully that analysis will include the benefits, not just the costs of the measure. The agency has not incorporated benefits into its past economic analysis of climate legislation. Usually it looks exclusively at the price tag, giving legislators nervously poised to vote on the controversial proposal a clear view of the downsides but none of the upshots.