Climate Change Bill Will Crush Recovery for Small Businesses

You actually believe that oil is abundant and cheap? Wow. I try not to be too blunt with people, but, look around you and get a clue.

The costs of continuing on our current energy path are enormously steep. American consumers and businesses already spend roughly $700 billion to $1 trillion each year on coal, oil and natural gas, and suffer the incalculable costs of pollution from fossil fuels through damage to our health and environment.  If America continues along a business-as usual energy path, U.S. fossil fuel spending is likely to grow, totaling an estimated $23 trillion between 2010 and 2030 - an amount equivalent to nearly three years’ worth of income for the entire American workforce at current earning rates.
http://www.environmentmaryland.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming-program-reports/the-high-cost-of-fossil-fuels-why-america-cant-afford-to-depend-on-dirty-energy

In 2006, American consumers and businesses spent $921 billion—or close to 7 percent of America’s gross domestic product—on fossil fuels, more than the nation spends on education or the military. In 2008, national expenditures on fossil fuels topped $1 trillion for the first time ever. Each year, more than 70 percent of this money is spent on oil. In 2007, America spent more than $360 billion importing fossil fuels, with the vast majority of that money spent on crude oil. That money is a direct transfer of wealth from American consumers to oil companies and foreign governments.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm

For every dollar that an American household spends each year, about 10 cents are likely to go toward the purchase of energy, with most of that money spent on fossil fuels. Fossil fuel production and use damage our environment and our health—inflicting even greater damage on the American economy and our quality of life.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, transitioning to a clean energy economy could cut global warming emissions while saving consumers and businesses $465 billion each year by 2030, with $1.7 trillion in net cumulative savings between 2010 and 2030. The federal government, along with states, should take actions to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

The cost of fossil fuels to our economy and our environment will continue to mount in the years to come unless the nation takes bold steps now to embrace the benefits of a clean energy future.
According to a recent analysis by the Department of Energy, under the climate bill the U.S. would reduce its oil consumption 344 million barrels in the year 2030 alone, a cut of more than 12 percent from predicted imports for the same year without the bill. Those 344 million barrels of oil are worth almost $24 billion today. Over the following years, under the climate bill, our oil consumption would continue to decline.

Imported oil sends billions of our dollars to other countries - some to countries hostile to the interests of the U.S. Those billions could be better spent here at home, creating the new business investments and new jobs, saving money for families who could spend it on health care, education, and other basic needs.

The only thing that China and India will be howling with glee over is if we don’t pass the Cap & Trade bill.  Any economically literate person would know that clean energy is going to be the next great global industry.

I suggest checking out this article from the New York Times published on the 15th
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/opinion/16friedman.html?em. You may not believe that global warming is real but “Here is what is indisputable: The world is on track to add another 2.5 billion people by 2050, and many will be aspiring to live American-like, high-energy lifestyles. In such a world, renewable energy — where the variable cost of your fuel, sun or wind, is zero — will be in huge demand.” As the author points out, the most important shift in the world in the last 18 months has been China’s realization that clean-tech is going to be the next great global industry, which is why it is now creating a massive domestic market for solar and wind - to give itself an excellent export platform. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that this October, the world’s largest solar research center will open in Xian, China.

Just yesterday in the Washington Post there was an article on how corporate America has begun to accept that climate change is a barrier to profit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002542.html “If we don’t move now, it just becomes more expensive, more complicated and a bigger risk,“ said Brad Figel, director of government affairs at Nike, at a Capitol Hill briefing last week sponsored by Oxfam America. When it comes to climate, corporations “are demonstrating they are willing, ready and able to engage with it,“ said Carbon Disclosure Project chief executive Paul Dickinson. “We are moving, without any doubt, into a carbon-constrained world,“ he added. Companies such as Levi Strauss, Starbucks, Wal-Mart, and Nike are all featured in the article for backing the House bill and taking steps to curb their own carbon footprints.

Clean energy is the new emerging economic sector and the U.S. needs to get on board or else countries such as China, Germany and India will take ownership of these markets. If we do nothing, America will lose its competitive edge and American jobs will continue to go overseas

I would have to agree with the others who have responded in saying that you are mistaken Ms. Kerrigan. The Waxman-Markey bill only includes targeting the largest producers of greenhouse gas producers which is a very, very small percentage of the population. The costs of fighting greenhouse gas pollution are modest and manageable, as laid on in the analyses of climate change legislation coming to the House floor from both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office. Opponents of climate change legislation cite vastly higher costs than those that CBO and EPA are reporting, but these claims are deeply flawed in two respects. First, they fail to distinguish between gross and net costs — that is, they simply ignore the substantial relief the legislation provides to consumers to help offset the higher energy costs they otherwise would face. Second, the analyses rely on outdated estimates of other cap-and-trade proposals that do not accurately reflect the provisions of the current legislation.

According to the Center for American Progress, investments in a clean-energy economy will generate major employment benefits for Virginia and the rest of the U.S. economy. Virginia could see a net increase of about $3.9 billion in investment revenue and 45,000 jobs based on its share of a total of $150 billion in clean-energy investments annually across the country. This is even after assuming a reduction in fossil fuel spending equivalent to the increase in clean energy investments. The Department of Energy has identified 1,778 ways for small- and medium-sized industrial plants in Virginia to earn savings from efficiency, with an average payback of only 1.2 years. Only 46% of these opportunities have been implemented

Even the Wall Street Journal reports that “the Waxman-Markey climate bill makes economic sense, offering benefits worth at least twice as much as it costs, if not more.” http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/09/08/waxman-markey-benefits-far-outweigh-costs-new-study-finds/. This week, the Institute for Policy Integrity released a policy brief titled, The Other Side of the Coin: The Economic Benefits of Climate Legislation http://cts.vresp.com/c/?InstituteforPolicyIn/8dd7ce1c1b/dacb95ebee/9891ec6771 .  Compiling estimates from several different federal agencies,  IPI was able to calculate that the economic benefits of the emissions cap in the Waxman-Markey bill likely dwarf the costs by as much as 9-to-1 or more. The benefit to cost ratio was determined using the EPA’s previously released (and peer reviewed) cost estimates and a newly released “social cost of carbon” estimate from an interagency process which provides a conservative dollar figure for the benefits of greenhouse gas reductions.

In confronting climate change, there is no option without costs. But we do have choices. We can invest a modest amount now – about a dime a day, according to a recent EPA analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill – and get cleaner air, greater energy security, and new energy jobs. Or, by choosing to do nothing, we can pay much more later in rising insurance rates, greater government spending to maintain public infrastructure, agricultural damage from droughts, the spread of insect-borne disease, increased international instability, and more intense hurricanes and storms.

Climate change action is overwhelmingly justified.  Given the severe economic risks associated with climate change and the relatively low cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there is little excuse for inaction from Congress.  Until now, legislators have only been looking at one half of the equation—the costs of the climate change bill.  Now though, Senators can finally compare the benefits of action to the costs. I commend legislators who have already shown support for the cap and trade bill and strongly urge Senators Warner and Webb to do the same.

Concern about the cost of energy is legitimate - but legislation that caps carbon emissions is absolutely the best way to PROMOTE affordable energy for Americans. American families, and their budgets, shouldn’t be at the mercy of OPEC and foreign regimes. It seems gas prices, electricity, and energy bills go up whenever we can least afford it, and we’re unable to do anything about it. It’s time to put America - not the big energy companies and not hostile foreign nations - in control of its own energy policy. Developing a strong and vibrant clean energy industry is what’s really best for small business.

Furthermore, Ms. Kerrigan cites some questionable studies to back up her opinion…
1) The CBO study is outdated and misreported, and vastly overstates the bill’s costs (see http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200909180002 for the fact check).
2) China has a million workers in the clean energy economy. India is doubling their clean energy market in 4 years. Germany is creating nearly three hundred thousand clean energy jobs. If we continue to stall on this market, that’s when we’ll really see our competitive edge (and jobs!) disappear. Instead, lets keep them in VA - By 2007, 1,446 businesses had generated more than 16,900 Virginia jobs in the clean energy economy (Pew Charitable Trusts, thanks for the stats!). On top of that, venture capitalists are investing nearly $71 million in Virginia’s clean energy businesses.

Senators Warner and Webb- please help pass this legislation soooooon!