doctordog
09-02-2009, 07:53 PM
A new report from the National Association of Manufacturers and a Washington, D.C., think tank warns that Ohio stands to lose from 80,000 to 108,00 jobs by 2030 if cap-and-trade energy legislation passed earlier this summer by the U.S. House of Representatives were to become law.
A leading environmental group has fired back at the report, calling the report a scare tactic and labeling its projections misinformation.
The report, an analysis of the broader American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 bill, says it bases its projections on job losses and energy cost hikes on forecasting data from the U.S. Energy Information Association. The main reasons for the Ohio job losses, the report said, would stem from lower industrial output as a result of high energy prices, the high cost of complying with required emission cuts and greater competition from overseas manufacturers with lower energy costs.
The report, a joint effort with the American Council for Capital Formation, projects as many as 2.4 million workers nationwide – mostly in the manufacturing sector – could lose their jobs by 2030 because of the legislation.
In Ohio, the analysis projects gasoline prices could rise by 26 percent by 2030, while electricity and natural gas prices could increase by at least 60 percent over the same time. The spikes would materialize as utilities shut down carbon-based plants and turn to what the report calls “expensive, as yet unproven technology” to capture and store carbon.
The data show the economic cost of the legislation, which also must be considered with its potential impact on global greenhouse gas reductions, officials releasing the report said this week.
“Considering that developing countries such as China and India have publicly stated that they will not undertake similar emissions policies, there would be almost no global environmental benefits from the bill,” Margo Thorning, chief economist for the capital formation association, said in a release.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, among the environmental groups backing the legislation, called the study a repeat of scare tactics the association has been using for years, adding that studies from the Energy Information Association, U.S. EPA and Congressional Budget Office estimate that costs for households tied to fighting climate change would be minimal and could even lower costs for low-income families.
“That’s why a growing number of business leaders, economists and labor groups all support comprehensive climate and energy legislation,” said Dan Lashof, director of the natural resources council’s climate center, in a release. “By shifting away from expensive and dirty fossil fuels, we can create millions of new jobs, break our dangerous dependence on oil and cut pollution that causes global warming.”
http://www.accf.org/media/docs/nam/2009/Ohio.pdf
http://www.accf.org/media/dynamic/3/media_381.pdf
Most of you probably know this unless you watch the comedy channel for news.
A leading environmental group has fired back at the report, calling the report a scare tactic and labeling its projections misinformation.
The report, an analysis of the broader American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 bill, says it bases its projections on job losses and energy cost hikes on forecasting data from the U.S. Energy Information Association. The main reasons for the Ohio job losses, the report said, would stem from lower industrial output as a result of high energy prices, the high cost of complying with required emission cuts and greater competition from overseas manufacturers with lower energy costs.
The report, a joint effort with the American Council for Capital Formation, projects as many as 2.4 million workers nationwide – mostly in the manufacturing sector – could lose their jobs by 2030 because of the legislation.
In Ohio, the analysis projects gasoline prices could rise by 26 percent by 2030, while electricity and natural gas prices could increase by at least 60 percent over the same time. The spikes would materialize as utilities shut down carbon-based plants and turn to what the report calls “expensive, as yet unproven technology” to capture and store carbon.
The data show the economic cost of the legislation, which also must be considered with its potential impact on global greenhouse gas reductions, officials releasing the report said this week.
“Considering that developing countries such as China and India have publicly stated that they will not undertake similar emissions policies, there would be almost no global environmental benefits from the bill,” Margo Thorning, chief economist for the capital formation association, said in a release.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, among the environmental groups backing the legislation, called the study a repeat of scare tactics the association has been using for years, adding that studies from the Energy Information Association, U.S. EPA and Congressional Budget Office estimate that costs for households tied to fighting climate change would be minimal and could even lower costs for low-income families.
“That’s why a growing number of business leaders, economists and labor groups all support comprehensive climate and energy legislation,” said Dan Lashof, director of the natural resources council’s climate center, in a release. “By shifting away from expensive and dirty fossil fuels, we can create millions of new jobs, break our dangerous dependence on oil and cut pollution that causes global warming.”
http://www.accf.org/media/docs/nam/2009/Ohio.pdf
http://www.accf.org/media/dynamic/3/media_381.pdf
Most of you probably know this unless you watch the comedy channel for news.