March 17
Co-authors of bipartisan global warming legislation destined for Senate debate in June emphasize that a recent EPA analysis reinforces supporters“ claims that their bill makes scientific and economic sense.
But critics of the measure sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va., still denounce it as an overpriced job-slayer.
"EPA“s detailed analysis indicates that the United States can curb global warming without sacrificing economic prosperity," Lieberman said in a joint statement with Warner about the 188-page report released Friday by the Environmental Protection Agency“s Office of Air and Radiation. "We will examine the results closely for improvements that they might suggest for the bill."
Warner said he was satisfied that the agency“s analysis demonstrates that "you can control greenhouse gas emissions in a manner that leaves the economy whole and is not burdensome on consumers."
EPA specialists examined the projected costs and benefits of three major climate change proposals. They begin with an assumption that under any law regulating greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. gross domestic product will double from its current $13.8 trillion by 2030.
Their model shows Lieberman-Warner spanking the economy the hardest by reducing GDP growth between 1 percent and 3.8 percent, or $238 to $983 billion.
In contrast, two other bipartisan measures are about equally less burdensome on the nation“s pocketbook. A proposal from Sens. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., could slice between 0.5 percent and 1.4 percent -- $124 billion to $369 billion --from the 2030 GDP. And, a measure from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lieberman pares between $133 billion and $419 billion.
On the environmental front, Lieberman-Warner is the clear winner on measurable reductions of carbon dioxide between 2012 and 2050. It would slice heat-trapping gases between 35 percent and 48 percent. Bingaman-Specter rings with reductions between 23 percent and 27 percent, and Lieberman-McCain between 25 and 29 percent.
Lieberman-Warner comes off as more onerous to industry in a market where carbon emissions will be capped, forcing high- and low-emitting businesses to trade pollution credits. The EPA models show carbon would cost between $46 and $83 per ton by 2030 under Lieberman-Warner.
A safety valve measure included in the Bingaman-Specter measure would limit the price per ton of carbon to $25. Environmental organizations are opposed to the safety valve. Carbon would cost between $27 and $32 per ton under Lieberman-McCain.
Prices for each ton of carbon would rise significantly by 2050 under all three scenarios. For Lieberman-Warner, it would be $121 to $220, for Bingaman-Specter, it would peak at $65, and for Lieberman-McCain, it would rise to $70 to $85, according to EPA figures.
Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, who has vowed to filibuster the bill when it moves to the Senate floor this June, was much harsher in his assessment of the bill.
"The EPA economic analysis ą is consistent with multiple studies that expose Lieberman-Warner for what it is -- a job-killer," the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said. "If Democrats have their way, Americans will pay significantly more at the pump, in their homes, and in many cases, with their jobs. No matter how anyone attempts to spin the economic impacts, this bill is wrong for America."
But Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., disputed the study“s results. The chairwoman of the environment committee blamed the White House for pulling strings to try to block global warming legislation. The EPA“s modeling, she said, relied on numerous unrealistic assumptions.
"When you look at all the scenarios the EPA analyzed," she said, "the one that most closely reflects the Lieberman-Warner bill“s technology-driving policies shows that this bill is a winner for the environment, a winner for the economy and a winner for the planet."
To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.wastenews.com