CBO Scores Senate Climate Bill - Will Save $21 Billion in First 10 Years
[Earth Logo]
The newest iteration of the climate bill in congress has just
been scored by the non partisan congressional budget office and, as with
the previous climate bill (Waxman-Markey in the House) the Senate bill
would save money. (It would cut carbon emissions too, potentially saving
trillions in items like flood relief not paid out too, etc, but that is
not a knowable sum, so the money saved by not destroying our climate
doesn't come into the CBO scoring.)
In scoring the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, the CBO
included the effects of the many counteractions that would result
throughout the economy in response to pollution costs entering the
equation for the first time.
One example is how much revenue might be lost to the Federal Government
because more companies would be likely to replace fossil energy with
renewable energy, and thus be eligible to take advantage of the 30% tax
credits, reducing taxable income.
Also, a cap and trade market that would be worth about $80 billion by
2012 would allow people as well as companies to trade allowances.
Homeowners who could reduce their fossil fuel use would be able to earn
money, just like businesses who did the same.
Like Waxman-Markey in the House, the Senate's Clean Energy Jobs and
American Power Act would cap emissions from electricity and from other
industrial activities beginning in 2012. About 7,400 facilities would be
affected. Mandates would require utilities, manufacturers, and other
entities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through cap-and-trade
programs and performance standards.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would regulate two cap and
trade programs, one to reduce the greenhouse gases (GHGs) carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, perfluorocarbons
and nitrogen trifluoride - and a separate cap and trade program to
reduce hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) a new, indirect climate risk
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090622171503.htmhttp://www\
.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090622171503.htmhttp://www.sciencedai\
ly.com/releases/2009/06/090622171503.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/rele\
ases/2009/06/090622171503.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/0\
6/090622171503.htm> .
The EPA already runs a cap and trade program to reduce NOx and SOx
(that cause acid rain) which cut both chemicals 50% in 20
<http://cleantechnica.com/2009/12/12/cap-trade-cut-emissions-50-in-20-ye\
ars/> years.
The costs to polluters would make it more profitable to figure out how
to co-produce energy, for example with waste to energy, combined heat
and power, and other technologies, or find alternatives for polluting
substances. The CBO estimated that HFC pollution alone could be lowered
50% by 2020.
The bill is sponsored by Environment Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer.
It would require U.S. emissions curbs of 20 percent by 2020 and 83
percent by 2050. The committee approved the bill with no GOP support,
after many attempts to get the Republicans to even show up. After
Senator Inhofe led a walkout, Senator Boxer reported the bill out of
committee.
The bill would increase federal revenues by about $854 billion; and
increase direct spending by about $833 billion. In other words, it would
not only not add to the Federal deficit, but it would create money;
reducing the deficit. About $21 billion between 2010 and 2019. More in
each decade for the next four decades.
http://snipurl.com/tqdwg [cleantechnica_com]
