Media Advisory: ‘Fanciful’ EPA Report Papers Over Obama’s ‘Skyrocket’ Prediction for Energy Costs

Published June 17, 2010

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued a report asserting that global warming legislation being considered by the U.S. Senate would cost the average U.S. household just $80 to $150 per year. Proponents of carbon dioxide restrictions are heralding the study as proof American families can easily afford carbon dioxide restrictions.

EPA’s assessment, however, does not reflect economic reality, according to James M. Taylor, The Heartland Institute’s senior fellow for environment policy.

You may quote directly from this statement or contact Taylor at [email protected] or 941/776-5690.

“The EPA report is dependent on many fanciful assumptions that have absolutely no chance of occurring in the real world. For example, EPA assumes nuclear power technology will lead to substantial efficiency gains and there will be no political opposition to a major expansion in U.S. nuclear power production. EPA also assumes all industrial nations will agree to cut their emissions by 83 percent by 2050 and all developing nations will cut their emissions by 26 percent by 2050, such that few if any jobs will relocate overseas as a result of disparate energy prices. Good luck on either of those scenarios happening in the real world.

“While EPA makes preposterous assumptions to paint carbon dioxide restrictions as affordable, President Barack Obama has acknowledged that ‘electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket’ under his cap-and-trade system. CBS News reports the Obama administration has privately concluded cap-and-trade legislation would cost the average U.S. household $1,761 per year. And the Obama Treasury Department reports cap-and-trade legislation would cost the average U.S. household nearly $3,000 per year.

“The American public is fed up with being sold costly big-government programs at pennies on the dollar only to find out later – the hard way – that these programs are going to cost much more than politicians initially admitted. This bait-and-switch approach may have worked for Obamacare, but the American public is wiser now, and it will not be fooled again.”
For more information, contact Jim Lakely, [email protected], or Tammy Nash, [email protected], or call 312/377-4000. The Heartland Institute is a 26-year-old, free-market, non-profit think tank based in Chicago.