CBO predicts cap-and-trade will cost about as much as a stamp a day

[USAMMAFAN]

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the U.S. cap-and-trade program will cost $22 billion annually, or about $175 per household, by 2020.

This figure includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy and of payments made to foreign entities under the program, reports CBO. However, it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in GHG emissions and the associated slowing of climate change, according to the CBO analysis.

The CBO report examines the average cost per household that would result from the implementation of the GHG cap-and-trade program under H.R. 2454, as well as how that cost would be spread among households with different levels of income.

Reducing emissions of GHGs would moderate the damage associated with climate change and the risk of significant damage, but it would also impose costs on the economy, reports CBO. In the case of carbon dioxide CO2 — which accounts for 85 percent of U.S. GHG emissions — higher costs would stem from the fact that most economic activity is based on fossil fuels that contain carbon and produce GHG emissions when burned, according to the analysis.

Under cap-and-trade, the federal government would put a limit on greenhouse gases from most sectors of the U.S. economy with the cap divided into billions of permits, reports Bloomberg News. Each permit is equivalent to one metric ton of carbon dioxide. CBO estimates that the price of an allowance would be $28 in 2020.

By annually reducing the supply of these permits, the cap-and-trade legislation written by House Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts would lower the limit on greenhouse gases to 17 percent less than 2005 levels by 2020, according to Bloomberg News.

The CBO analysis estimates that the legislation will cost the richest U.S. households $245 a year, and the poorest will see gains of $40 a year.


CBO: Cap-And-Trade to Cost $175 Per Household · Environmental Leader · Green Business, Sustainable Business, and Green Strategy News for Corporate Sustainability Executives


175/365 = $0.48


Cue some "study" by a conservative think tank paid for by polluters. VVVVVVVVVVV

[John Redcorn]

Also, I've got some great oceanfront land out in Montana if your interested PM me.

[Conan Memories]

This is such a scam

People are such sheep. I find it ironic that people bash those that believe in God, yet are totally buy into global warming propaganda. It's absolutely amazing.

[dylanransom]

Wow. That's bullshit on a stick, sorry. These criminal fucks will get their chance to prove themselves liars though, because there's nothing about to stop them.

[AznTrojan]

i'm guessing the dems are willing to concede the coal producing states with this brilliant legislation

[foxnewsfan]

and that is just the first year......

Since you don't seem to know anything about the bill, I'll let you in on a few things. Waxman was forced to water down the first few year of the tax inorder to please rural democrats, then to please the liberals he made it so the tax jumps tremedously after the first few years.

You probably didn't notice this footnote at the end of the CBO report: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap.". think on that for a while....

If we look at the broad picture under this more comprehensive scenario, Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.


The Cap and Tax Fiction - WSJ.com


The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

[Position]

Sure! And the public option is also going to be fully paid for and not subcidized with tax payer's money

Cap-and-Trade Climate Bill Would Slow U.S. Economy, CBO Head Says - washingtonpost.com

"Elmendorf testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the cap-and-trade provisions of the House bill -- in which emitters of greenhouse gases would be able to buy and sell pollution credits -- would cut the nation's gross domestic product by 0.25 to 0.75 percent in 2020 compared with "what it would otherwise have been," and by 1 to 3.5 percent in 2050."

Also:

CBO Testimony Misleads on Cost of Cap and Trade

"As the first column makes clear, middle class families are expected to suffer a hit of more than $1,000 per year in higher prices. (And remember, this figure is the one that has already been cut in half using the total output vs. consumption trick explained above.) Whatever happened to “a postage stamp a day”? Does the CBO know something about the Postal Service’s intentions that we don’t?"

[Allcomplete]

Prepare to grab your guns gentlemen, write a will and keep it in your pocket. We must take our Country back.

[Leviathan]

Originally Posted by USAMMAFAN

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the U.S. cap-and-trade program will cost $22 billion annually, or about $175 per household, by 2020.

This figure includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy and of payments made to foreign entities under the program, reports CBO. However, it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in GHG emissions and the associated slowing of climate change, according to the CBO analysis.

The CBO report examines the average cost per household that would result from the implementation of the GHG cap-and-trade program under H.R. 2454, as well as how that cost would be spread among households with different levels of income.

Reducing emissions of GHGs would moderate the damage associated with climate change and the risk of significant damage, but it would also impose costs on the economy, reports CBO. In the case of carbon dioxide CO2 — which accounts for 85 percent of U.S. GHG emissions — higher costs would stem from the fact that most economic activity is based on fossil fuels that contain carbon and produce GHG emissions when burned, according to the analysis.

Under cap-and-trade, the federal government would put a limit on greenhouse gases from most sectors of the U.S. economy with the cap divided into billions of permits, reports Bloomberg News. Each permit is equivalent to one metric ton of carbon dioxide. CBO estimates that the price of an allowance would be $28 in 2020.

By annually reducing the supply of these permits, the cap-and-trade legislation written by House Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts would lower the limit on greenhouse gases to 17 percent less than 2005 levels by 2020, according to Bloomberg News.

The CBO analysis estimates that the legislation will cost the richest U.S. households $245 a year, and the poorest will see gains of $40 a year.


CBO: Cap-And-Trade to Cost $175 Per Household · Environmental Leader · Green Business, Sustainable Business, and Green Strategy News for Corporate Sustainability Executives


175/365 = $0.48


Cue some "study" by a conservative think tank paid for by polluters. VVVVVVVVVVV

Everything about this post makes me sad. Cap and Trade must be one of the worst ideas I have heard in recent memory. It is almost like they designed it to be as complicated, expensive, and ineffective as possible, because I see no other way you could create such a mess. No accident could forge something this overtly full of fail.

I also like your comment at the end about the coservative think tank paid for by polluters. It basically tells me right away that you aren't really interested in any "information," because you have already decided what you believe regardless of any pesky "facts."

[Ocean Chief]

Lol he didn't even stay around to try and refute these comments?