In early August, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, released their analysis of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation. Disappointingly, their report is wildly out of step from the level-headed reports of the Congressional Budget Office, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Information Agency, and others. And on the very first page, the Heritage report admits its own irrelevance by highlighting the refusal of the Heritage Foundation to consider in its calculations the very serious consequences of failing to act on climate change.
Heritage Foundation estimates are not simply slightly more pessimistic than those of more neutral sources; they are nowhere near them. Their estimate of annual per-household costs of cap-and-trade, for instance, ranges up to 2,611% higher than the projections of the EPA. And while analyses by UMass Amherst and others show that investing in green energy sources will create nearly two million jobs over the next decade, the Heritage Foundation projects that addressing climate change and modernizing our energy portfolio will cripple our economy.
Thankfully for those of us who don’t enjoy reading inaccuracy in small print, the Heritage Foundation made it clear on the first page that reading the subsequent twenty pages would not be necessary. There, scrawled in fine print in Footnote #1, the Heritage Foundation concisely confesses to the complete irrelevance of their analysis:
Scientific questions about global warming, its causes, and the seriousness of the consequences are not discussed in this report.
How can the Heritage Foundation issue a report critical of efforts to stem the potentially disastrous impacts of global warming, but blithely fail to consider the costs of continuing without addressing these risks? The NRDC estimates that, by the end of the 21st century, the direct impacts of global warming could cost the United States $1.9 trillion per year in energy- and water-sector costs, hurricane damages, and real-estate losses. A 2006 Tufts University study (PDF) found similar, dire potential consequences waiting for us should we choose not to act: according to those estimates, if left unchecked, global warming could cost the global economy $74 trillion. How can the Heritage Foundation ignore these massive risks when discussing climate change?
If the Heritage Foundation were truly interested in strengthening America’s economy, they would stand alongside those calling for sensible actions on climate change. They would applaud policies such as cap and trade that allow the free market to operate but also make sure that, when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, the environmental costs of doing business are borne by those doing business, rather than by the delicate chemistry of our climate.
For now, with publications like this, the Heritage Foundation appears less interested in helping American businesses adapt and succeed to the realities of the 21st century, and more interested in simply continuing a futureless vision of business as usual.
Comments (0) · Leave a Comment
Leave a Comment