“H.R. 2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act threatens the United States $14.4 trillion economy, measured by GDP, which is the largest national economy of the world. Of this amount, 7.5 percent ($1 trillion) of the US economy is attributed to by the oil and natural gas industry. To give you an idea of how the United States derives it source of energy, the below outlines the division of the energy industry:

* 40% from petroleum
* 23% from coal
* 23% from natural gas
* 7.4% from nuclear power
* 6.6% from renewable energy

Affect on Employment
The oil and natural gas industry alone represents 63% of US energy production and supplies the US economy with over nine million jobs to Americans. However, according to the Brookings study, H.R. 2454 would cause a 15% decline in refining employment and a 35% drop in crude oil employment1. Buttressing Brookings Study, the National Black Chamber of Commerce found that a net 2.5 million jobs will be lost after accounting for the new green jobs being created.

Affect on Individual Finances
According to the Heritage foundation, the Waxman-Markey (H.R. 2454) would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020; which equates to about $1,900 for a family of four. As the emissions limits decrease, the costs rises to $6,800 per family by 2035. In today’s terms, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the net present value of the bill would equate to approximately $12,000. Another way of stating the above statistics to more practical terms; the Congressional Budget office states that H.R. 2454 would add up to 77 cents per gallon of gasoline, while the Heritage Foundation has a more conservative analysis of gasoline prices rising by more then 74% by 2035.”

-Heriberto Latigo, Houston Personal Finance Examiner

http://www.examiner.com/x-17064-Houston-Personal-Finance-Examiner~y2009m10d4-HR-2454-American-Clean-Energy-and-Security-Act

————–

Heriberto Latigo makes it sound like the Brookings Study is on this particular bill and that the analysis is meant as evidence against the move. Actually, if you click on the first link in his Bibliography, the Brooking Report which he claims to be getting his information about the bill from and you’ll see this:

* Not an analysis of particular bills
*Not a cost?benefit analysis
» Looking only at mitigation costs and emissions
reductions
* Looking for ways to pursue environmental goals at lower cost

So that tells you right off that the study isn’t what he makes it out to be. However, a fact sheet reveals that the current bill is “consistent” with some of the emission paths the study looks at. Here are the key findings:

The study estimates that alternative paths to reach an emission reduction target of 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 will:

• reduce cumulative U.S. emissions by 38% to 49%, about 110 to 140 billion metric tons CO2
• reduce total personal consumption by 0.3% to 0.5%, or about $1 to $2 trillion in discounted present
value from 2010 to 2050
• reduce the level of U.S. GDP by around 2.5% relative to what it otherwise would have been in 2050
• reduce employment levels by 0.5% in the first decade, with large differences across sectors
• create an annual value of emission allowances peaking at around $300 billion by 2030, and a total value
of about $9 trillion from 2012 to 2050

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2009/0608_climate_change_economy/20090608_cap_trade.pdf

Below is a picture showing the huge impact that the bill will have on our economy. You need a magnifying glass just to see the differences in 2050.

But Heriberto Latigo isn’t the only one trying to misrepresent that report, as you can see here:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/09/brookings-study-waxman-markey-economy/

And what’s the second source he claims “buttresses the Brookings Report”? The National Black Chamebr of Commerce. Just put that into Wikipedia and you see that they are sponsored by:

* Tobacco Company Altria. NBCC has opposed tobacco control legislation.
* ExxonMobil has provided $225,000, per a Greenpeace analysis titled ExxonMobil’s Continued Funding of Global Warming Denial Industry[1]
* AT&T and Verizon. NBCC has opposed Network Neutrality, a position strongly held by AT&T and Verizon.
* Comcast. NBCC has opposed A La Carte pricing, a position strongly held by Comcast.

And what are their other positions on legislation?

* In testimony submitted to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions regarding Senate Bill S.625, the NBCC stated that it opposes increased Food and Drug Administration regulation of tobacco. The reason for its opposition is that the regulation would impose fees affecting small tobacco retailing and distribution businesses in the U.S., many of which are owned by Black Americans.[2] The statement contained no reference to health risks associated with using tobacco products.
* The NBCC indicated that the Microsoft settlement was inadequate in terms of consumer protection and that additional remedies were required

And what’s source #3? An oldie but a goodie. The Heritage Foundation. A conservtive think tank that uses the supply side business model of Reagan and Bush II. Here’s one of their key strengths according to Wikipedia:

“Heritage’s influence is also due in part to its decision to publish shorter policy papers that are designed to convey usually complex topics in an executive summary format more likely to be read by governmental officials. Other Washington think tanks historically have produced lengthier publications or book-length works, which Heritage also publishes, but only rarely.”

So that’s why they’re so much more popular than the American Enterprise Institute and other right-wing think tanks. They publish “Far Right-Wing Ideology for Dummies.”