Rep. Boehner Spouts False Statistics, Re-Packages Bush's Energy Plan

June 10, 2009 4:36 pm ET

On June 10, 2009, House Minority Leader John Boehner repeated the debunked claim that the American Clean Energy and Security Act would raise energy costs by $3,100.

Rep. Boehner Repeats Debunked Cap-And-Trade Cost Estimate

Rep. Boehner: "The Democrats' national energy tax will be paid by anyone who drives a car, buys an American-made product, or flips on a light switch. That means a yearly average of $3,100 in higher energy costs for middle-class families - and fewer jobs for American workers." [Boehner Release, accessed 6/10/09]

"$3,100" Cost Estimate Is FALSE

FactCheck.org: "The $3,100 Figure Is A Misrepresentation Of Both Obama's Proposal And The Study From Which The Number Is Derived." According to FactCheck.org: "Leading Republicans are claiming that President Obama's proposal to curb greenhouse gas emissions would cost households as much as $3,100 per year. The Republican National Committee calls it a 'massive national energy tax.' But the $3,100 figure is a misrepresentation of both Obama's proposal and the study from which the number is derived... If the government did use revenue from cap and trade 'to pay an equal lump-sum rebate to every household,' the CBO expert said, 'lower-income households could be better off.'" [FactCheck.org, 5/28/09; emphasis added]

Even Before Markup, The EPA Estimated Cap-And-Trade Bill Would Cost Less Than $150 Annually. According to the Wall Street Journal: "The Environmental Protection Agency presented its analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill on Tuesday and said the contentious plan would cost households less than $150 a year. That's a far cry from some of the dueling price tags that have been bandied about." [Wall Street Journal, 4/21/09; emphasis added]

EPA: Markup Changes In Bill Decrease "The Impact On Household Energy Bills." According to an EPA report: "The change in early-year cap levels lowers allowance prices slightly. In the draft bill, the year-2020 emissions cap for covered sources was set at 20% below the year-2005 level. In H.R. 2454, the year-2020 cap is changed to 17% below the year-2005 level. (The 2012, 2030, and 2050 targets remain the same.) That relaxation of the cap, by itself, will lower allowance prices by 3%. Accordingly, that single change will lower the cost of the legislation for households, in part by lowering the impact on household energy bills." [EPA, accessed 5/27/09; emphasis and parentheses original]

Investment In Clean Energy Means More Jobs

Investment In Clean Energy Technology Will Create Over 1.5 Million American Jobs. According to the Center for American Progress, a $100 billion Green Recovery program would create 1,578, 282 American jobs. [Center for American Progress, "Green Recovery," September 2008]

Boehner's Home State Of Ohio Would Gain More Than 80,000 Jobs From Increased Investment In Clean Energy. According to the Center for American Progress, Ohio would gain 80,360 jobs from its share in a $100 billion Green Recovery program. [Center for American Progress, "Green Recovery," September 2008]

Investment In Clean Energy Technology Creates FOUR TIMES As Many Jobs As An Investment In Oil & Gas. According to the Center for American Progress: "Spending $100 billion within the domestic oil industry would create only about 542,000 jobs in the United States. A green infrastructure investment program would create nearly four times more jobs than spending the same amount of money on oil energy resources. And again, spending on oil offers no benefits in transitioning the U.S. economy toward a low-carbon future, while perpetuating the economic and national security vulnerabilities by continuing to rely on oil for the lifeblood of our economy." [Center for American Progress, "Green Recovery," September 2008]

Investment In Renewable Energy Has Already Salvaged Many Manufacturing Facilities Closed During Economic Downturn. Across America, factories and plants abandoned by the old economy have been re-tooled and re-opened to satisfy the growing demand for new energy technologies. For instance, once hopeless manufacturing plants in Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Michigan have re-energized their communities by creating jobs and leading the charge toward a new energy future. [Bloomberg, 4/2/09; Star Tribune, 4/22/09; Grand Rapids Press, 3/6/08]