CBO Says Climate Bill Will Hurt Not Help Economy

Marc Sheppard
Today, the director of the Congressional Budget Office warned the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that proposed climate change legislation would impose "significant costs" on America's GDP and employment.  That’s not exactly what proponents had promised.

According to CBO chief Douglas Elmendorf, the Waxman-Markey bill passed in the House last June would reduce GDP by between one and three quarters of a percent by 2020, and between 1 and 3.5% by 2050.  To the average household that might equate annually to $160 by 2020 and $925 by 2050 – hardly the “cost of a postage stamp” promised by the White House.

And the CBO director admitted the obvious -- that even those figures, which represent just a fraction of many economists’ predictions, are likely somewhat understated:

"The uncertainties are very large, even for 2020, and they get larger over time”
He identified one of those uncertainties of “the cost of reducing carbon emissions” as just “how readily the economy can move" in response, admitting that the CBO is only "guessing the rate."

The highest accounting authority in the land is only guessing the rate used in its cost analysis of the proposed largest tax-hike in history?  Wow hardly covers it. 

On a somewhat more certain note, Elmendorf debunked the “green jobs will save us” canard, predicting that such technologies will never keep up with the massive job loss  brought on by a coerced transition from fossil fuels, adding that:
"The fact that jobs turn up somewhere else for some people does not mean there aren't substantial costs borne by people, communities, firms and affected industries.”

Indeed it doesn’t.  In Spain – once Obama’s shining example of his energy policy goals – there has been only one green job created for every two “old” jobs lost.  The result has been a green-policy-induced 18% national unemployment level.

And for every hundred, thousand, or even million jobs lost, the impact on the climate will amount to that many times zero, as there has been no relationship whatsoever established between CO2 emissions and global temperatures.

But I digress ……

One week ago today, the CBO gave Obamacare a shot in the arm by estimating (or guessing I suppose) it would reduce federal deficits by $81 billion over the next decade.

In response, the White House was quick to praise the CBO for "confirm[ing] that we can provide stability and security for Americans with insurance and affordable options for uninsured Americans without adding a dime to the deficit and saving money over the long term."

And for days to follow, MSM headlines loudly praised both the CBO‘s announcement and its non-partisan integrity.

Given its disagreement with the administration’s relentless promises that cap-and-trade will boost employment and revive the economy, expect both the White House and the MSM to offer a slightly different assessment of last week’s hero.

And an increasing number of citizens to recognize the varying levels of deception spouting from all three.



Today, the director of the Congressional Budget Office warned the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that proposed climate change legislation would impose "significant costs" on America's GDP and employment.  That’s not exactly what proponents had promised.

According to CBO chief Douglas Elmendorf, the Waxman-Markey bill passed in the House last June would reduce GDP by between one and three quarters of a percent by 2020, and between 1 and 3.5% by 2050.  To the average household that might equate annually to $160 by 2020 and $925 by 2050 – hardly the “cost of a postage stamp” promised by the White House.

And the CBO director admitted the obvious -- that even those figures, which represent just a fraction of many economists’ predictions, are likely somewhat understated:

"The uncertainties are very large, even for 2020, and they get larger over time”
He identified one of those uncertainties of “the cost of reducing carbon emissions” as just “how readily the economy can move" in response, admitting that the CBO is only "guessing the rate."

The highest accounting authority in the land is only guessing the rate used in its cost analysis of the proposed largest tax-hike in history?  Wow hardly covers it. 

On a somewhat more certain note, Elmendorf debunked the “green jobs will save us” canard, predicting that such technologies will never keep up with the massive job loss  brought on by a coerced transition from fossil fuels, adding that:
"The fact that jobs turn up somewhere else for some people does not mean there aren't substantial costs borne by people, communities, firms and affected industries.”

Indeed it doesn’t.  In Spain – once Obama’s shining example of his energy policy goals – there has been only one green job created for every two “old” jobs lost.  The result has been a green-policy-induced 18% national unemployment level.

And for every hundred, thousand, or even million jobs lost, the impact on the climate will amount to that many times zero, as there has been no relationship whatsoever established between CO2 emissions and global temperatures.

But I digress ……

One week ago today, the CBO gave Obamacare a shot in the arm by estimating (or guessing I suppose) it would reduce federal deficits by $81 billion over the next decade.

In response, the White House was quick to praise the CBO for "confirm[ing] that we can provide stability and security for Americans with insurance and affordable options for uninsured Americans without adding a dime to the deficit and saving money over the long term."

And for days to follow, MSM headlines loudly praised both the CBO‘s announcement and its non-partisan integrity.

Given its disagreement with the administration’s relentless promises that cap-and-trade will boost employment and revive the economy, expect both the White House and the MSM to offer a slightly different assessment of last week’s hero.

And an increasing number of citizens to recognize the varying levels of deception spouting from all three.