| April 30, 2009 |  |
Oil Industry Front Group Ads Spread Climate Misinformation
Ads Target 10 Member of Congress
A front group with ties to the energy industry is running misleading radio advertisements in 10 congressional districts to try to undermine support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation that would lower energy costs and create jobs, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
The American Energy Alliance (AEA), which was founded in 1993, is headed by Thomas J. Pyle, who served as a staff member for former House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-Texas). The group's Web site says it is an "independent affiliate" of the Institute for Energy Research, which is headed by Robert L. Bradley, former director of public policy analysis at Enron and a speechwriter for CEO Kenneth Lay.
The AEA ads erroneously state that draft legislation proposed by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) "could cost our family's (sic) more than $3,100 per year in new taxes."
AEA's claim is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study that several members of Congress—including Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio)—have been repeating. Politifact, a nonpartisan Web site run by St. Petersburg Times Washington Bureau Chief Bill Adair, said the lawmakers' claim is false. It gave its worst "Pants on Fire" rating to Rep. Boehner and his colleagues for ignoring the fact that one of the authors of the MIT study, John Reilly, said their interpretation of his work is wrong.
In fact, the MIT study concludes the federal government could raise approximately $3,100 per household from polluting industries—not individuals—by requiring polluters to pay for emissions under a cap-and-trade system. That money could be used for a range of purposes, such as giving consumers tax breaks, funding energy efficiency to cut demand, investing in renewable energy to cut our reliance on polluting fossil fuels, and stimulating green-collar job growth.
Opponents of the Waxman-Markey bill also do not take into account its other positive features, which include stronger standards for energy efficiency and renewable electricity generation. According to a recent UCS study, a combination of policies like the ones found in the Waxman-Markey bill could lead to an emissions-reduction cap of 56 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and save consumers and businesses $465 billion in that year. After investing in home efficiency improvements, the average U.S. household would enjoy a net savings of $900 on its energy bills, including $580 on transportation (fuel, vehicle and driving) costs and $320 on electricity, natural gas and heating oil. Businesses collectively would realize net energy bill savings of $130 billion.
Meanwhile, a number of studies by universities, governments and advocacy groups conclude that economic growth would continue at approximately the same rate under a cap-and-trade system as under a business as usual scenario. For example, a 2008 report by the Environmental Defense Fund (pdf), which synthesized the findings of five academic and government studies, found that a well-designed cap-and-trade program would lead to only 0.5 percent less growth in the gross domestic product by 2030 and only 0.75 percent less growth in GDP by 2050. In other words, the amount of prosperity Americans would be expected to achieve by January 2050 under a business as usual scenario would come in April or June of that year instead under a economywide cap-and-trade system.
Finally, the cost of doing nothing to curb the heat-trapping emissions would dwarf the cost of addressing the problem. A 2008 Natural Resources Defense Council study (pdf) projected that, if current trends continue, the total cost of climate change in the United States could be as high as 3.6 percent of GDP by 2100. Sir Nicholas Stern, who oversaw a review of the economics of climate change for the British Treasury in 2006, concluded that climate change could cost the global economy nearly $10 trillion by next century due to rising sea levels, famine, storms and other environmental harm. Inaction, Stern projected, would eventually cost the world the equivalent of 5 to 20 percent of global GDP annually. Conversely, the Stern report calculated that significantly reducing heat-trapping emissions would cost a mere 1 to 2 percent of world economic output by 2050.
The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.
