Anyone buying these numbers ?

( – promoted by DD4RP)

I may be a bit skeptical but here the latest consumer’s cost estimate from CBO for Cap and Trade


WASHINGTON, June 22 (Reuters) – Climate change legislation pending in Congress would cost U.S. households only about $175 annually in higher energy and consumer prices, far less than the $3,100 “burden” opponents have claimed would result, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate.

http://www.reuters.com/article…

The original estimate was over 3k per household…I wonder why the large discrepancy

About garyrlake

  • Low-income households would see an average net benefit of $40, mostly through rebates and other aid, while high-income families could see added net costs of $245 per year in 2020.

    See, it won’t cost them anything because we’re mailing out checks from the government!  Checks from the government are free!  Nobody has to pay for them!  Everybody wins!

    It just like the $787,000,000,000.00 spending bill.  It’s free because they don’t pay for it.

  • tax on the working man…..and it will do exactly nothing to curb emmissions because there are no punishments for going over the cap that are not passed onto ME.  This is like some dilhole saying that I will no longer drive to work if the gubmint taxes gas enough.

    No, dilhole, I will still drive to work…it will just take more food out of my kids’ mouths.

  • Knightbrigade

    The difference is because —

    ‘”I” have saved or created $3000 in consumer energy prices!’

    Yours Truly,

    President

    PrompterBinky

  • I believe the original 3k estimate came from the CBO originally, and I can’t even imagine how they work out their numbers and only end up with a figure that is less than 10% of the original.  It just doesn’t pan out…say for instance my electric bill goes up by $20 a month.  That may be the direct cost to me.  But what about all the goods and services I purchase?  There will be across the board price increases on everything.  No business is just going to eat the increased cost of doing their business.  Me thinks they are presenting the same numbers in a different light without factoring in all the indirect costs…or someone is just plain cooking the books.

    And there are no stop gaps in this measure.  I watched the hearings and every attempt to put in “If unemployment reaches x% we’ll yank this thing”…”If the estimates are off by more the X% we’ll repeal this act”.  This is a forever thing.

  • selfish bastards.  $175 annually is a bargain….$3000 is a bargain.   It’s the only planet we have.  Everyone needs to quit their jobs, disable their cars, and move into the city to send their kids to Boston schools….to save the future.  The bigger problem is the theft of conception rights through genetic engineering.

    Something must be done to stop the h+ agenda!!

    /JH

  • These numbers are totally bogus on their face.  Obama says that he is going to raise $624 billion in climate change revenues over 10 years.  That’s $62.4 billion a year.  http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/sto

    There are 111 million households in the United States.  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_

    62.4 billion / 111 million = $562 per household per year in carbon taxes alone.

    Plus there will be higher costs as electricity producers switch to more expensive forms of power generation (wind and solar) and away from cheaper forms of power (coal, gas and nuclear).

    The $175 is simply false.  

  • This from the NYtimes yesterday


    House Democrats still lack agreement on key details of a comprehensive global warming and energy bill despite intervention from several top Obama administration officials, diminishing the chances that the measure will pass off the floor this week before the start of the Fourth of July recess.

    Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), one of the legislation’s lead co-authors, told reporters late Friday that he remained at an impasse with rural Democrats over which government agency — U.S. EPA or the Agriculture Department — should manage projects that pay farmers to conduct environmentally friendly conservation practices.

    Without agreement on this issue and many others, Waxman and his allies remain short of the 218 votes needed to advance one of President Obama’s signature domestic agenda items.

    Hopefully they can forestall this hair-brained scheme and their healthcare debacle long enough to get into the mid-term election cycle.

  • nomad943

    I wonder why the large discrepancy

    A quick show of hands … Who thinks the number is anything but a complete brain fart ….. Uh-huh … tell us another one Obuma … We’ll believe anything, we’re just so Stew-ped.