October 20, 2009 11:33 am ET
On October 19, 2009, Sen. James Inhofe wrote a column on the National Journal's Energy & Environment blog in which he repeated a slew of conservative talking points aimed at derailing clean energy jobs legislation. In reality, legislation increasing our investment in clean energy technologies would create jobs in every state and help America become more energy independent, all for less than a quarter a day.
Sen. James Inhofe:
The national energy tax in question, of course, is cap-and-trade, a misguided, flawed, and ultimately ineffective approach to addressing global climate change. Yes, let's do things to support more nuclear plants, but those things should be detached from the Waxman-Markey, Kerry-Boxer, Massachusetts-California style energy tax. This tax will affect just about every good and service in the economy. It will mean higher electricity and gasoline prices, fewer jobs, and a less competitive American manufacturing sector. Again, tying nuclear provisions to a profoundly bad idea still leaves a profoundly bad idea. [Inhofe column, National Journal, 10/19/09; emphasis added]
Sen. Inhofe's campaigns have been bankrolled by the Big Oil & Gas industries.
Sen. Inhofe Has Accepted Over $1.2 Million From The Oil & Gas Industries. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. James Inhofe has accepted $1,223,723 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industries. [OpenSecrets.org, accessed 10/20/09]
Reuters: "Climate Legislation Moving Through Congress Would Have Only A Modest Impact On Consumers." According to Reuters: "A new U.S. government study on Tuesday adds to a growing list of experts concluding that climate legislation moving through Congress would have only a modest impact on consumers, adding around $100 to household costs in 2020. Under the climate legislation passed by the House of Representatives in June, electricity, heating oil and other bills for average families will rise $134 in 2020 and $339 in 2030, according to the Energy Information Administration, the country's top energy forecaster." [Reuters, 8/5/09]
EIA: Clean Energy Legislation Would Cost Only $0.23 Per Day. According to a House Energy and Commerce Committee factsheet of the Energy Information Administration's analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act: "The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has completed an analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), as passed by the U.S. House of Representatives... The overall impact on the average household, including the benefit of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would be 23 cents per day ($83 per year). This is consistent with analyses by the Congressional Budget Office which projects a cost of 48 cents per day ($175 per year) and the Environmental Protection Agency which projects a cost of 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year)." [House Energy and Commerce Committee, EIA's Economic Analysis Of "The American Clean Energy And Security Act Of 2009," 8/4/09; emphasis original]
CBO: In 2020, Cap-And-Trade Will Only Cost An Average Of $175 Annually, "About A Postage Stamp A Day." In its analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the Congressional Budget Office wrote: "On that basis, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the net annual economy wide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion-or about $175 per household." Rep. Edward Markey noted it was "the cost of about a postage stamp a day." [CBO, 6/19/09; House Committee on Energy & Commerce Release, 6/20/09]
As Media Matters Action Network has noted, a recent study from UC Berkeley found that pollution reduction and energy efficiency measures would create up to 1.9 million jobs, boost GDP by up to $111 billion and increase families' incomes by nearly $1,200 per year!
Investment In Clean Energy Technology Will Create Over 1.7 Million American Jobs. According to the Center for American Progress: "Investments in a clean-energy economy will generate major employment benefits for the entire U.S. economy. Our research finds that spending $150 billion on clean-energy investments would create roughly 1.7 million jobs. This is even after assuming a reduction in fossil fuel spending equivalent to the increase in clean-energy investments." [Center for American Progress, The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy, 6/17/09]
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 $1 million on energy efficiency and renewable energy produces a much larger expansion of employment than spending the same amount on fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Among fossil fuels, job creation in coal is about 32 percent greater than that for oil and natural gas. The employment creation for energy efficiency-retrofitting and mass transit-is 2.5 times to four times larger than that for oil and natural gas. With renewable energy, the job creation ranges between 2.5 times to three times more than that for oil and gas." [Center for American Progress, The Economic Benefits of Investing in Clean Energy, 6/17/09]
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]
A Single Nuclear Power Plant Can Cost Upwards Of $18 Billion. As reported by the blog Climate Progress, "In October 2007, Florida Power and Light (FPL), 'a leader in nuclear power generation,' presented its detailed cost estimate for new nukes to the Florida Public Service Commission. It concluded that two units totaling 2,200 megawatts would cost from $5,500 to $8,100 per kilowatt - $12 billion to $18 billion total!(These are the actual costs, not adjusted for inflation.) Lew Hay, chairman and CEO of FPL, said, 'If our cost estimates are even close to being right, the cost of a two-unit plant will be on the order of magnitude of $13 to $14 billion. That's bigger than the total market capitalization of many companies in the U.S. utility industry and 50 percent or more of the market capitalization of all companies in our industry with the exception of Exelon. ... This is a huge bet for any CEO to take to his or her board.'" [Climate Progress, 6/13/08]
Electricity Generated By Nuclear Power Will Cost "2 To 5" Times Current Retail Price. According to a report titled Business Risks and Costs of Nuclear Power: "Generation costs/kWh for new nuclear (including fuel & O&M but not distribution to customers) are likely to be from 25 - 30 cents/kWh. This high cost may destroy the very demand the plant was built to serve. High electric rates may seriously impact utility customers and make nuclear utilities' service areas noncompetitive with other regions of the U.S. which are developing lower-cost electricity... Most ratepayers nationwide are now paying retail electricity rates (including distribution & transmission & G&A costs) equal to 6 cents/kWh to 15 cents/kWh current retail electric rates. Adding new nuclear power - with costs for generation alone, that are 2 to 5 times total retail electric rates now in place - will have a dramatic upward effect on electric rates." [Business Risks and Costs of Nuclear Power, 1/2/09]
Copyright © 2010 Media Matters Action Network. All rights reserved.