The Indifference Point on global warming: $18.75 a month
For the first time, someone has put a price on what Americans are willing to pay to protect their children and grandchildren from the effects of global warming: $18.75 a month.
The effort began with a Washington Post/ABC News poll last week that found that 62 percent of Americans think the government should regulate greenhouse gases even if regulation raises the costs of things they buy. The pollsters then briefly described the cap-and-trade legislation that passed the House on Friday. Fifty-two percent of those polled said they would support it.
The poll then asked if respondents would be willing to pay $10 a month extra on their electric bills to cover higher costs if cap-and-trade significantly reduced greenhouses gases. Fifty-six percent said they would; 42 percent said they wouldn’t.
Then the pollsters asked if respondents would be willing to pay $25 a month extra. Support dropped to 44 percent and opposition increased to 54 percent.
Nate Silver, a respected poll analyst who runs the numbers-crunching website FiveThirtyEight.com, then plotted the poll results on a graph and came up with what he called the “environmental indifference point,” the price point at which the majority of Americans no longer feel the effort is worth it: $18.75 a month.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the cap-and-trade bill would raise the average annual household electric bill $14.58 a month by 2020, well below the indifference point. Electricity would cost more because utility companies that burn coal and other fossil fuel would have to buy pollution permits if they exceed their emissions caps.
The CBO’s numbers, too, are squishy. They don’t include the impact that higher energy prices would have on the rest of the economy. Nor do they extend beyond the year 2020, when the cost of emission permits is expected to be much higher. By 2020, the House-passed bill mandates a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gases, rising to 83 percent by the year 2050. It’s entirely likely that the cost of meeting those goals will exceed the indifference point.
On the other hand, what’s the alternative?
The consensus among climate scientists is that greenhouse gas emissions have caused, are causing and will continue to cause dangerous changes to the planet. Indeed, many climatologists believe the cap-and-trade bill is a Band-aid on a sucking chest wound. NASA scientist James Hansen, often called the “father of global warming,” calls the bill a “monstrous absurdity.”
But it is what is politically possible now — if only barely. If four House members had changed their votes, it would have failed, and there’s no guarantee it will pass the Senate. It is just the first step on a long road, and it’s going to cost all of us more than we’re comfortable with.
To pretend that it will not is disingenuous. But to ignore the threat — even for the noble goal of promoting economic growth — is suicidal. Sooner or later, if you put off repairs on your roof, it will come crashing down on your children’s heads.
“The consensus among climate scientists is that greenhouse gas emissions have caused, are causing and will continue to cause dangerous changes to the planet.”
Consensus is not sciene or proof…at one time there was a general consensus that people of other skin colors or different ancestries where genetically and intellectually inferior to other groups. Just because there was a consensus that this was true, didn’t make it true.
Good point Matt. Climatologists 50 years from now may very well look back at global warming hysteria the same way we look at phrenology and eugenics today.
1. Russ Canahan says that C/T will only cost $1 a day per household.
2. Funny how the P-D has never reported that Tom Carnahan owns a windfarm company and will reap large benefits from his brother’s vote:
http://mizzoumag.com/2009-Spring/features/wind/index.php
3. I hope this passes. I can’t wait to see the elderly Democrats in St.Louis, Kirkwood, and Webster Groves get socked with this expense when they try to sell their outdated homes. This won’t effect the Chesterfield GOP crowd.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/07/dems-cap-tax-bill-requires-all-homes-to.html
4. Why hasn’t the P-D reported that the EPA is supressing an EPA climate change report that disputes global warming?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/
5. Why is it so hard to get honest news and honest, researched editorials from the P-D instead of just the same old blathering talking points from the DNC. How lame!
Matt - way, way too logical.
Science, Matt? You want the science? You can’t handle the science:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf
SoCoBoy, you think the EPA is the only organization to report on global warming? Why don’t you follow the same link, if you think you can understand it.
Scientific concensus is not the same as scientific proof. Would we approve new drugs that were only thought by half the medical community to work? Of course not. However, here, we are doing just that. When global warming didn’t happen and the temps actually got cooler, the loons changed the name to climate change.
The cost of this, as you rightly pointed out, doesn’t end with the increase in electricity. It will also increase the cost of gas. The cost of new appliances. More expensive light bulbs and on and on. The increase cost to the millions of workers like coal miners will be 100% when they lose their jobs. The European examples are clearly showing a loss of 2.5 jobs for every new “green” job “created”. This is another scam by the progressive fringe to redistribute wealth to other countries which will not embrace this. They are laughing at us again. There are hiring signs going up all over China and India and longer lines forming at the unemployment offices here.
Anybody ever see BSdetector and JGCarlton in the same room at the same time?
BSDeflector - Apparently YOU have the problem understanding any of the other links posted that refute Al Gore’s Global Warming BS money grab.
JJK - That is the goal of the Chicago Party (aka Obama). Make us all unemployed so we are forced to rely on their handouts.
-Wait til you try to sell your house and find out you can’t until you replace any older “nonefficient” windows or doors. Then, of course you’ll have to buy a new furnace, air-conditioner, or any other “wasteful” appliance, add new insulation, and a host of other new costs not figured in any tax equation.
-Never learned ANY “science” fact that was based on “consensus”. This is just a debunked old theory with NO consensus of experts. The newer data shows actual cooling.
-The REAL questions we should ask is:
-What were those who voted for this vill promised in return for their vote?
-How many of these legislators have their fingers in the “green”
apple pie, and what is their eventual payoff?
-The Spanish tried this, and are now running away from it as fast as they can. Other European “enlightened” are also starting to see the “unexpected” costs of this policy, and are second-guessing the decision.