Just about anything printed that passes before my eyes gets read. I had just made my weekly grocery run at Wal-Mart and was pumping gas at the onsite station, Murphy USA, when I noticed a litte tear-off pad on the gas pump, that read "HELP KEEP ENERGY COSTS LOW AND ENSURE THAT THE PRICES OF THE PAST DO NOT BURDEN OUR FUTURE." (The caps and bolding are Murphy's, not mine.)
Well, I can support that. No one wants energy prices to soar. But what caught my eye was a FAST FACT printed in another corner of the tear-off sheet.
More below...
The Fast Fact...
According to studies, current legislative proposals could cause gas prices to increase at least 60-144% before your toddler has even finished college.
The "wait just one moment!" bell started ringing in my brain. Todder to college graduate....twenty years at least? And they think that gas prices won't go up at least 60% by then? Shoot, I thought, scarcity will kick it up more than that, without any help from government policies of any kind.
I tore off the top sheet, took it home and started doing a little background checking. The sheet suggested visiting www.fuel-america.com.
On the first page of that site, I found this:
Currently, the federal government in Washington is considering ways to address global warming. Global warming is an incredibly complex and challenging issue that directly impacts our energy future, our economy, and our lives in far reaching ways.
Congress is working on this global issue. Yet, if not done right, they could increase energy costs, increase our dependence on imported energy, cost American jobs, and wreak havoc on the American economy at the worst possible time – when we are fighting to climb out of a severe economic recession.
As a proud Arkansas based American company, Murphy USA cares deeply about our energy security – today and in the future. We recognize that our customers need affordable energy That’s why our business model is all about providing our customers with low fuel prices. The fact is that higher gas prices hurt not only your bottom line, but ours too.
Okay, no problem so far. No out-and-out denial of the fact of global warming, a concern that Congress gets things right...it all seemed sensible enough.
I noticed, however, another "fast fact" boxed to the right of this statement.
Fast Fact
Higher energy costs, lower economic activity and fewer jobs in turn lowers average household income by $738 to $2,927 in 2020 and between $4,022 and $6,752 in 2030.
Source: Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) by the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
The little bell in my head starts ringing a wee bit louder. So a government plan to cut greenhouse gases is going to cut household income by more than $6,000 in twenty years? That's a statement guaranteed to catch the eye of Wal-Mart customers....and, IMHO, make them very, very unhappy.
But how accurate is that statement? Checking the sources is always a good idea. I decided that I should do just that, so I started with the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). (Both organizations listed above were also given as the source of the "before your toddler has even finished college" quote.)
I opened a fourth tab on Explorer, Googled NAM and found this on SourceWatch.
Founded in 1895, the National Association of Manufacturers's "mission is to enhance the competitiveness of manufacturers by shaping a legislative and regulatory environment..." [1] The group has a long roster of lobbyists in Washington lobbying on dozens of issues....
Although NAM has a long and unabashed history of representing the interests of industrial corporations, progressive blogger David Sirota has accused them of being a "front group," a "corrupt, partisan wing of the Republican apparatus whose leadership often uses NAM's resources against the interests of the majority of NAM's own members.[1]
So perhaps they might have a vested interest in claiming that a 144% rise in the cost of gas in twenty years might not be due to scarcity or even ordinary inflation, but to the actions of Congress?
I would hate to think that. I decided to look at the ACCF. A little searching turned up this interesting claim, from Exxonsecrets.org.
Founded in the early 1970s, ACCF's motto is "economic growth through sound tax, regulatory and environmental policies."
ACCF brags it is "a well connected spokesman for American business in Washington," a "key player" in policy circles and "one of the most influenctial organizations operating behind the scenes" in the Washington policy making arena (from web site "about ACCF" March 2004). According to Senate records, ACCF officers Mark Bloomfield, Margo Thorning, and Mari Lee Dunn were registered as lobbyists for ACCF on Climate Change Policy and the Kyoto Protocol for the years 1998, 1999, and 2001-2003. They argued that Kyoto would have a severe negative economic impact on the US economy. In August 2002, ACCF established its International affiliate, the International Council for Capitol Formation. Based in Brussels, it focuses on "reducing tax, regulatory, anti-trust, and trade barriers" primarily in Europe (www.iccfglobal.org, March 2004).
The same site claims that ACCF has received $1,634,523 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
Hmmmm.
(Sorry for the html addresses, but I never can get a link to hook to a single word and I do think it's important to list my sources. The quote from Sourcewatch is at http://www.sourcewatch.org/... and the quote from ExxonSecrets.org is at http://www.exxonsecrets.org/...
Now, SourceWatch and Exxonsecrets.org certainly have their own axes to grind, but at this point I'm wondering why Murphy USA is using NAM and ACCF quotes...and only their quotes. Was the other side of the argument presented a little further inside the Murphy site? I clicked on a "Current Issue" link, and found this:
What could Wasington’s global climate change policies mean for you, your family and your future?
The decisions we make now will impact our future and the future of our children – our quality of life and the way we live. But how much will it cost? No one is really sure. Economists, energy analysts, businesses, special interests groups, and reasonable people everywhere debate that question nearly every day. Estimates vary greatly and depend on the assumptions made – assumptions like what would electricity costs be if 150 new carbon-free nuclear plants are built or what if the U.S. takes a long time to get out of the recession.
Yet, everyone agrees that global climate change policies will certainly cost American consumers.
At this point, I thought, everyone agrees? Really? No one thinks that going green might, in the long run, cut energy prices for consumers?
According to a National Manufacturer’s Association (NAM) and American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) study, an analysis of one of the proposals on climate change indicate:
Electricity prices could increase up to 129% by 2030.
Higher energy costs lower economic activity and fewer jobs will in turn lower the average household income up to $2,927 in 2020 and between $4,022 and $6,752 in 2030.
Increased energy costs are projected to slow the US economy by $210 billion in 2020, and between $631 billion to $669 billion in 2030 (2007 dollars).
Job losses could go as high as 4 million by 2030.
NAM and ACCF again. Murphy, could we see a few stats from somebody else? Anyone else?
And Murphy came through.
According to a study commissioned by the National Black Chamber of Commerce analyzing global warming legislation under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives:
Macroeconomic impacts include 2.3 million jobs lost by 2015 rising to 2.7 m jobs lost by 2020.
Households would have $730 less to spend each year by 2015, and $800 less to spend each year by 2020.
Except now we're talking about the Waxman-Markey Climate Change Legislation, not the Lieberman-Warner bill.
Still, energy legislation is energy legislation and those stats sound grim. Who, I wondered, had done this study? A university? A non-partisan economic organization?
I took a quick look at the PDF of the study and found that it had been done by CRA International. A quick Google search for their clients turned up an impressive list, including lots of hospitals and colleges. It sounded pretty good.....
Then I happened to notice that the header for this stack of clients called it a partial list. Who, I wondered, might be missing?
A little more checking led me to the "Oil & Gas" section of the CRA International website:
Oil & Gas
CRA has extraordinary capacity to comprehend and meet the business, financial, and structural challenges faced by the oil and gas industry, particularly in the Middle East, where we have a long history of assisting both national and international oil companies and government agencies.
Hmmmmm.
At this point, my head started aching. MurphyUSA provides cheap gas, which I appreciate, and they certainly have a right to provide their customers with facts--or opinions--via little tear-off sheets. Me, I just with they'd get rid of those darn talking pumps. I hate having to listen to commercials and pitches for gas additives while I fill my tank.