American Clean Energy and Security Ac Tneg MH

American Clean Energy and Security Act(Neg)
Matthew Hamilton, Eveready

__________________________________________________________________________________________
_
Forced Energy Efficiency is Bad

“The 2009 Energy Bill: Anti-Market and Anti-Consumer”, by Nicolas Loris(Credentials below), and
Ben Lieberman(Credentials below), the Heritage Foundation, April 2, 2009,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2378.cfm
Energy efficiency can be beneficial for consumers, but it rarely does good when Washington tries to
force it on them. Energy-efficient appliances and mechanisms will not painlessly lower electricity bills:
These measures impose costs, and consumers benefit only if the energy savings outweigh such
expenses. Mandatory improvements in efficiency usually raise the purchase price of appliances;
sometimes the increase is more than enough to negate the energy savings. In addition, the forced
reduction in energy use can result in decreased product performance, features, or reliability, which
destroys value for the consumer.
Bill Will Not Accomplish It's Goal

Presented as a comprehensive energy bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
(ACES) offers nothing more than subsidies and mandates for unsuccessful, unproven energy sources
coupled with taxes on reliable energy sources that falsely claim to stimulate the economy by investing
in clean technology and creating green jobs. This government-centric approach will destroy jobs and
drive up energy prices for years to come.
Renewables Too Expensive With or Without Bill

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2378.cfm[Brackets added]
ACES includes a renewable electricity standard (RES) that requires 6 percent of electricity to come
from renewable energy by 2012. This requirement will increase to 25 percent in 2025.
A federally mandated RES[Renewable Energy Standard] is proposed only because renewables are too
expensive to compete otherwise. In effect, Washington is forcing costlier energy options on the public.
Since renewables are lavished with substantial tax breaks, a national mandate will cost Americans both
1 of 4
__________________________________________________________________________________________
_
as taxpayers and as ratepayers. Any incentive proposed by government should in truth be read as a
handout.
Carbon Capping Systems Fail

Although the rest of ACES is bad enough, the most alarming section is the government's attempt to
regulate carbon dioxide. The third title of the bill introduces a "market-oriented" cap-and-trade program
that would reduce carbon dioxide by 20 percent below 2005 levels in 2020 and by 83 percent below
2005 levels in 2050. Furthermore, it calls for strict oversight by FERC and calls on the Environmental
Protection Agency to use the Clean Air Act to reduce black carbon and hydroflurocarbons.
Despite Washington policymakers' best attempt to call cap-and-trade a market-oriented approach, the
reality is that any carbon capping plan is a costly energy tax in disguise—raising energy prices and
unemployment with little, if any, environmental benefit. A global warming tax could generate as much
as $1.9 trillion in tax revenue over eight years, which amounts to an annual tax of nearly $2,000 on
every American household
Political Economy Research Institute Study Was Faulty

“The PERI Report on Clean Energy: The Wrong Question and a Misleading Result”, by Karen
Campbell(Credentials below), The Heritage Foundation, June 27, 2009,
http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/bg2303.cfm
However, the number, 1.7 million net jobs, is incomparable to other macroeconomic impact studies.
First, the results of the experiment cannot be subtracted to achieve a net jobs number. Second, the jobs
created are not for the overall economy because, among other faulty assumptions, the report ignores the
general equilibrium effects of "investment spending" and fails to account for the price effects induced
by a cap-and-trade scheme. Price changes will cause far-reaching adjustments that affect the transition
of the economy. Without a consistent baseline to compare against, the results are meaningless.
In short, the PERI analysis is not an economic analysis. The study poses an irrelevant question and then
uses an ill-conceived investigation method to answer the question. The report contains many economic
assumptions that are not supported by economic theory or empirical studies. The report contains many
economic conjectures that are unsupported by the analysis. The report makes generalized claims
without citing specific studies to back up these assertions.
PERI Job Total Result Was Lacking

2 of 4
__________________________________________________________________________________________
_
In their[PERI] report, the authors ask: "How many jobs will spending on clean energy create relative to
spending the same amount of money on investment in high-carbon fuel industries?" They answer:
"Spending on clean energy will create a higher net source of job creation in the United States relative to
spending the same amount of money on high-carbon fuels." Specifically, they report that spending
$150 billion per year on clean energy will produce a net gain of 1.7 million in the number of jobs that
the economy would use to produce the same amount of energy. Yet the study reports the net job gain
from investing in clean energy as if it is the overall macroeconomic effect. Indeed, the methodology
used to answer this question renders the actual interpretation of the result highly ambiguous.
4 Reasons Why PERI Study Was Inaccurate

1. The authors never decided on the timing issue. The study is unclear when the 1.7 million jobs
will be created in relation to each year's investment payments ($150 billion per year) and
whether any type of present value discounting was applied.
2. They assumed longer-run multiplier effects from the increased spending (dynamic effects)
while holding all other dynamic adjustments fixed, thereby mixing dynamic and static analysis.
3. The authors never decided whether they were reallocating the funds from fossil fuel industries
to clean energy industries or simply dropping these funds into the economy. If it was a
reallocation as they claim, then job losses in the fossil fuel industry would result in consumption
and income losses as well, which should have been accounted for in estimating the consumption
and income feedback effects. If it was a helicopter drop of money into the sector, then the
results are unrealistic and irrelevant for an economic debate.
4. They essentially use a rule-of-thumb approach to estimate the increase in employment resulting
from an increase in spending via its effect on employee compensation. Yet they shroud this
rough calculation in an econometric and quasi-simulation exercise.
PERI Study Shows Economy Will be Hurt

The method and assumptions applied in the PERI report render the quantitative result meaningless.
However, one conclusion that the authors repeat throughout their study seems quite defensible and
highly probable: Instead of investing to make labor more productive, their proposal to create a green
energy future would put more people to work by reducing economic efficiency, which will lead to
reduced wages.
3 of 4
__________________________________________________________________________________________
_
GDP Loss of $400 Billion and 1 Million Jobs Lost

“Not on Americans' lists”, HutchNews.com, December 21, 2009,
http://www.hutchnews.com/Westernfront/moran2009-12-21T20-37-02
At the same time, the president continues to seek cap and trade legislation from Congress. The cap and
trade bill approved by the House of Representatives in June remains one of the most damaging pieces
of legislation passed by the House during my time in Congress. One study of the House-passed cap and
trade bill by the Heritage Foundation showed that the legislation would result in annual GDP losses of
almost $400 billion and would lead to the elimination of 1 million jobs. The bill would increase the
cost of doing business in the U.S., force small business owners to close their doors and cause
companies to leave the country for nations where costs are less. At a time when so many Americans are
without work, this is the last thing our country needs.
CREDENTIALS
-Nicolas Loris is a Research Assistant at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy
Studies.
At Heritage, Loris studies energy, environment and regulation issues such as the economic impacts of
climate change legislation, a free market approach to nuclear energy and the effects of environmental
policy on energy prices and the economy.
-Ben Lieberman a specialist in energy and environmental issues, is a Senior Policy Analyst at The
Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.
Lieberman, trained as a lawyer and accountant, is known in public policy circles as a strong advocate
of free-market solutions to the challenge of rising energy prices. He opposes unnecessary government
regulation and mandates for energy producers while supporting increased access to domestic energy
supplies.
-Karen Campbell is a policy analyst in macroeconomics at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data
Analysis.
In this position, Campbell will be designing and maintaining the center's several computer models of
the U.S. economy. She also will participate in several projects for "Leadership for America," Heritage's
10-year national policy campaign.
4 of 4

American Clean Energy and Security Ac Tneg MH

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

American Clean Energy and Security Ac Tneg MH

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

American Clean Energy and Security Act(Neg)

Matthew Hamilton, Eveready

Forced Energy Efficiency is Bad

Bill Will Not Accomplish It's Goal

Renewables Too Expensive With or Without Bill

Carbon Capping Systems Fail

Political Economy Research Institute Study Was Faulty

PERI Job Total Result Was Lacking

4 Reasons Why PERI Study Was Inaccurate

PERI Study Shows Economy Will be Hurt

GDP Loss of $400 Billion and 1 Million Jobs Lost

Você também pode gostar