Two Or Three Tanks Of Gas Can Buy You A Climate Bill

Big greenhouse gas emissions reductions don't come cheap -- at least, you would think that by listening to right-wingers in the Senate. But what if you listen to expert economists at U.S. EPA instead?

You learn that the American Power Act will cost the average household $79 to $140 a year over the next 40 years, figures the agency handed over to the bill's sponsors, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass. and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), today.

That's about the price it takes to fill up a mid-sized car's gas tank two or three times at today's average price of $2.60 a gallon. It's also a bargain deal.

With all of the consumer protections and utility bill rebates, the costs are the lowest of any climate bill yet, the senators said. The price already accounts for all the expected effects of higher energy prices. And certainly $140 a year is not chump change, but that's for the average household. Lower-income households would pay a lot less.

And what are you buying for $79 to $140 a year? Check out Change.org blogger Ben Proffer's series on the bill for the details, but EPA has said that the bill's carbon cap -- combined with international reductions pledged by the G8 countries -- would leave us with a semi-decent chance of keeping the globe within a 2-degree temperature rise by the end of the century.

In other words, that money is saving the world from catastrophic global warming impacts.  Basically, there are no more legitimate excuses to NOT vote for the bill, unless your representative is hell-bent on protecting major industry backers.

What's more, a recent analysis by global consulting firm McKinsey & Company found the bill would spur an average of 440,000 more jobs through 2020.

Which brings up one more point: EPA's analysis does have one major flaw. Its price tag only includes the costs of reducing our emissions -- but does not factor in the huge monetary benefits, such as avoiding major droughts, more damaging hurricanes and rapid sea-level rise.

Michael Livermore, executive director of NYU's Institute for Policy Integrity, argues that leaving these substantial benefits out is a huge mistake. "It's like telling someone in the market for a home to pay $200,000 without telling them the property is a mansion on Fifth Avenue or a mountain ranch in Colorado," he wrote in Grist.

The real problem is the U.S. Senate can't even decide if we're in the market yet. Maybe we'll just stick with in the old crumbling home we've got.

Photo Credit: Stopnlook/Flickr user