EIA Ignores Hidden Costs of Kerry-Lieberman Bill

Global warming activists are claiming a new report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that restricting carbon dioxide emissions will have few negative impacts on the U.S. economy. A closer look at the EIA report, however, shows EIA’s cost estimates are dependent on a number of key assumptions that have no chance of occurring in the real world.  When all is said and done, American consumers would be stuck with a prohibitively expensive bill that will do little to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

EIA reports the Kerry-Lieberman global warming bill would reduce U.S. gross domestic product 0.2 percent during the next 25 years, reducing average household income by more than $200 per year. That’s the “good” news heralded by global warming activists. The bad news is that most of the carbon dioxide reductions would occur only on paper, as carbon dioxide emitters merely pay fees to other nations or sectors of the economy to produce questionable carbon dioxide offsets. For the few carbon dioxide reductions that would actually occur, these are largely dependent on the same nuclear power, natural gas power, and clean coal power that environmental activists vigorously oppose. 

In the real world there is no way environmental activists will allow the large increase in nuclear power, natural gas power, and clean coal power necessary to keep Kerry-Lieberman costs at “only” $200 per household per year. Relying on far more expensive wind and solar power instead, costs will “necessarily skyrocket” just as President Obama himself has admitted.