John Reilly, MIT professor and author of a study that has been misrepresented by John Boehner, has sent the minority leader a letter telling him to stop giving the wrong figures.
He begins his letter thus:
It has come to my attention that an analysis we conducted examining proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Report No., 146, Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals, has been misrepresented in recent press releases distributed by the National Republican Congressional Committee. The press release claims our report estimates an average cost per family of a carbon cap and trade program that would meet targets now being discussed in Congress to be over $3,000, but that is nearly 10 times the correct estimate which is approximately $340. Since the issue of legislation to control greenhouse gases is now under consideration, I wanted to take an opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding created by this press release and to avoid further confusion.
More below the jump
Think Progress is attempting to get the word out, and have a press release here and the whole letterhere.
From Think Progress:
Think Progress previously reported the outright lie being told by GOP leaders in Congress that the green economy legislation before Congress would "cost every American family up to $3,100 per year in higher energy prices." The GOP leaders apparently arrived at this number by intentionally misinterpreting a 2007 study conducted by MIT.
Hopefully, the truth will be able to get its boots on before the $3,100 "lightswitch tax" lie gets all the way around the world. Cap and trade is our best hope right now for reducing our CO2 output and doing something about global warming. While the Republicans and their enablers continually talk about "fear-mongering" on the part of environmental activists, it is they who are fanning the fears of the citizens of this country.
Professor Reilly ends his letter with:
Climate change poses severe risks for the US and the world. It will take efforts in the US and abroad to reduce emissions substantially to avoid the most serious risks of climate change. One of the perplexing aspects of the problem is that the solution involves using cleaner energy sources that are more costly then conventional fossil fuels. And the higher energy prices needed to cover the higher costs will fall disproportionately on the poorer members of society in the US and in the world. However, the less wealthy members of our economy also stand to suffer most from climate change—whether it is through the risks of increased food prices if climate change disrupts crops, the lack of access to air conditioning under extreme heat, or vulnerability to other extreme weather and storm events such as hurricanes which may increase with climate change. Many of the proposals currently being considered by Congress and as proposed by the Administration have been designed to offset the energy cost impacts on middle and lower income households and so it is simplistic and misleading to only look at the impact on energy prices of these proposals as a measure of their impact on the average household. Concern about the cost impacts on middle and low income families needs to be focused on making sure allowance or tax revenue is used to offset cost impacts on these households rather than as an excuse for not proceeding with measures that would help avert dangerous climate change.