Why Going Green Doesn't Hurt The Economy

The cap and trade bill that has already passed the House, will undoubtedly lead to more rigorous debate across America. Opponents may argue that the cap and trade bill would have a significant negative impact on the economy. Paul Krugman discusses why this is a falsehood that has been conjured by misguided talk show hosts. See the following post from Economist's View.

The Waxman-Markley cap-and-trade climate bill won't destroy economic growth:

It’s Easy Being Green, by Paul Krugman:, Commentary, NY Times: So, have you enjoyed the debate over health care reform? Have you been impressed by the civility of the discussion and the intellectual honesty of reform opponents? If so, you’ll love the next big debate: the fight over climate change.

The House has already passed a fairly strong cap-and-trade climate bill, the Waxman-Markey act, which if it becomes law would eventually lead to sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. But on climate change, as on health care, the sticking point will be the Senate. And the usual suspects are doing their best to prevent action.

Some of them still claim that there’s no such thing as global warming, or at least that the evidence isn’t yet conclusive. But that argument is wearing thin — as thin as the Arctic pack ice... So the main argument against climate action probably won’t be the claim that global warming is a myth. It will, instead, be the argument that doing anything to limit global warming would destroy the economy. ...

It’s important, then, to understand that claims of immense economic damage from climate legislation are as bogus, in their own way, as climate-change denial. Saving the planet won’t come free (although the early stages of conservation actually might). But it won’t cost all that much either.

How do we know this? First, the evidence suggests that we’re wasting a lot of energy right now...— a phenomenon known ... as the “energy-efficiency gap.” The existence of this gap suggests that policies promoting energy conservation could, up to a point, actually make consumers richer.

Second, the best available economic analyses suggest that even deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would impose only modest costs on the average family. Earlier this month, the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis of the effects of Waxman-Markey, concluding that in 2020 the bill would cost the average family only $160 a year, or ... roughly the cost of a postage stamp a day.

By 2050, when the emissions limit would be much tighter, the burden would rise... But the budget office also predicts ... that G.D.P. per person will rise by about 80 percent. The cost of climate protection would barely make a dent in that growth. And all of this, of course, ignores the benefits of limiting global warming.

So where do the apocalyptic warnings about the cost of climate-change policy come from?

Are the opponents of cap-and-trade relying on different studies that reach fundamentally different conclusions? No, not really. ... Instead, the campaign against saving the planet rests mainly on lies.

Thus, last week Glenn Beck — who seems to be challenging Rush Limbaugh for the role of de facto leader of the G.O.P. — informed his audience of a “buried” Obama administration study showing that Waxman-Markey would actually cost the average family $1,787 per year. Needless to say, no such study exists.

But we shouldn’t be too hard on Mr. Beck. Similar — and similarly false — claims about the cost of Waxman-Markey have been circulated by many supposed experts.

A year ago I would have been shocked by this behavior. But as we’ve already seen in the health care debate, the polarization of our political discourse has forced self-proclaimed “centrists” to choose sides — and many of them have apparently decided that partisan opposition to President Obama trumps any concerns about intellectual honesty.

So here’s the bottom line: The claim that climate legislation will kill the economy deserves the same disdain as the claim that global warming is a hoax. The truth about the economics of climate change is that it’s relatively easy being green.

[See also Can Countries Cut Carbon Emissions Without Hurting Economic Growth? by Robert Stavins.]

This post has been republished from Mark Thoma's blog, Economist's View.

The Climate Bill Will Be A Disaster

The climate bill will make a mess of the economy and do little to fight global warming according to Martin Hutchinson from Money Morning. In addition it will not raise any net revenue although it creates huge economic costs for businesses. See the following post that discusses some of the consequences if the cap-and-trade bill passes.

The Waxman-Markey Bill, the much-ballyhooed clean energy legislation passed recently by the U.S. House of Representatives, is an economic and political mess.

It introduces huge new distortions in markets, imposes onerous new regulations on a number of industries, requires a large addition to bureaucracy and risks a trade war.

And it does very little to fight global warming.

At this point, however, investors really only need to know two key things about this legislation in order to set themselves up for profit, while avoiding any losses from the bill’s fallout:

• From a political standpoint, Waxman-Markey is likely to become law in something close to its current form, meaning investors can craft a plan of attack with a fairly high degree of confidence.

• And, from an economic standpoint, it seems to define a pretty clear set of winners and losers, enabling us to flesh out that plan.

A “Good” Tax?

I’m not sure whether I believe in global warming. We clearly seem to be producing more carbon dioxide than we used to, but it’s not clear how much of an effect that’s having on global climate. Equally, the effects of extra carbon dioxide are long-term and largely irreversible, so even if the warming effect is limited in our lifetime, we probably owe it to our grandchildren not to leave them living in a steam bath.

To the economically minded who share my skeptical-but-cautious view, the optimal policy is pretty obvious: We should enact a carbon tax. Government operations have to be funded somehow, and there’s no obvious reason why a carbon tax should be any more economically damaging than any other kind of tax.

A carbon tax has two advantages over other alternatives:

• First, it can be varied easily, as we get new information and become more worried or less worried about global warming.

• Second, it allows investment and purchase decisions to be made by the market, just tweaking the price mechanism a bit to reflect our concerns about carbon emissions.

We’re not going to get a carbon tax, because it has the politically deadly word “tax” as part of its name. Still, during the presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama showed off a pretty sensible “cap-and-trade” program. All the carbon emissions permits were sold, so the market was able to work properly, with no freebie giveaways to politically favored recipients. Further, there were no “offsets” by which companies could satisfy domestic permits by persuading the Chinese not to build a dirty coal-fired station, for example (these have given rise to innumerable scams in the European Union cap-and-trade system).

Such a system would have raised lots of revenue, helping to close the budget deficit and pay for healthcare reform, which ought to be one of its major objectives, given the United States’ now-dire fiscal position.

The Lowdown on Waxman-Markey

That’s not what we’re getting with Waxman-Markey, under which 85% of the emissions permits will be given away for free. That depresses the amount of carbon emissions saved, because with so many free permits available, the price of permits will be low.

Also, Waxman-Markey forces new buildings to use 30% less energy by 2012, intruding the U.S. federal government into yet another business previously regulated at the state level. It allows “offsets” for 2 billion tons of carbon emissions a year - 50% domestic and 50% international.

Finally, it doesn’t even raise any net revenue, because the giveaways and administration costs match the fairly paltry revenue raised through selling permits; according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) it’s just barely “revenue neutral” in the 2010-2019 time frame. That’s a major problem for President Barack Obama’s budget, which had assumed $624 billion in revenue from cap-and-trade in that same period.

This post was republished from Money Morning. You can view the entire article at Money Morning's investment news and analysis site.