Whose interests is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce really worried about anyways?
Ours or their sponsors?
Study: New EPA Reg to Cost Half-Trillion in Compliance, 224,000 Jobs Per Year
by Tyler McNally, cnsnews.com -- June 2, 2014
A new U.S. Chamber of Commerce report analyses how new EPA regulations will "threaten to suppress average annual U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $51 billion [annually] and lead to an average of 224,000 fewer U.S. jobs every year through 2030."
[...]
Hmmm, isn't this the same Lobbyist agency that supports exporting U.S. Jobs overseas?
In 2004, Chamber head Tom Donohue made the case that outsourcing shouldn't be a concern because only "two, maybe three million jobs, maybe four" would be lost.
Funny that, little
inconsistency.
But you see this Chamber report has a little problem with overstating the cost numbers; and understating the new economic opportunities ... as we inevitably shift away from the era of Cheap Carbon, to the era of Cleaner Renewables.
U.S. Chamber says new EPA rule could cost economy $51 billion a year
by Don Lee, latimes -- May 28, 2014
[...]
The chamber said the numbers were based on modeling from the economic research firm IHS, using assumptions that the regulation would set a 42% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels -- an aggressive percentage that is close to a target previously cited by President Obama.
Some analysts noted, however, that the chamber’s economic analysis doesn’t take into account the gains in productivity, among other benefits, in employing pollution-cutting technologies and shifting to cleaner sources of energy.
[...]
Even if the chamber’s projections are true, some economists said, a $51-billion drop in output amounts to peanuts for an American economy with an annual gross domestic product of about $15 trillion.
[...]
Markets change. Needs change. People's awareness
change.
Unless you're advocating for the status quo system, of billions in profits for your carbon energy benefactors, that is. THEN, everything must remain exactly the same.
Now for the Pinocchio Test ... What about the 42% reduction target that the COC Report "just assumes" to be the goal ...
GOP lawmakers rush to cite study to discredit new EPA rule, but study assumed EPA rule would be tougher
by Glenn Kessler, Fact Checker, washingtonpost.com -- June 3, 2014
[...]
The Facts
Note that the EPA rule said that the agency would seek a reduction of 30 percent. But on page 15 of the Chamber report, the Chamber says it assumed the rule would impose a 42 percent reduction: “The 42% emissions reduction figure was chosen because, to date, it remains the only publicly announced Administration GHG [Greenhouse Gas protocol] reduction goal for 2030. The Administration has not said whether or how this goal might be modified.”
Oops. That’s a rather large gap between assumption and reality, as the Chamber of Commerce conceded to The Fact Checker. “It’s a big difference,” said Matt Letourneu, senior director for communications and media at the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, which produced the study. “We are going to have to see where the numbers fall.”
[...]
The Pinocchio Test
Given the significant difference between the emission targets in the proposed rule and the assumptions in the Chamber report, Republicans should have avoided using the Chamber’s numbers in the first place. We understand that they believe the negative impact will outweigh any positive impact but even by the Chamber’s admission, these numbers do not apply at all to the EPA rule as written.
[...] These early warnings tipped the GOP citation of the Chamber study into the Four-Pinocchio range.
Four Pinocchios
PS. That means it's "a Doozy" ... as in Untrue. False. A disturbing fabrication.
This "dire warning" from the Chamber of Commerce, about the pending U.S. Energy Consumer's "2030 doom and gloom":
In all, the regulations will force U.S. consumers to pay $289 billion more for electricity through 2030 and lower total disposable income for U.S. households by $586 billion through 2030, the Chamber says.
"Americans deserve to have an accurate picture of the costs and benefits associated with the administration's plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through unprecedented and aggressive EPA regulations," said Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the Chamber's Energy Institute.
$289B average out over the next 15 years is about
$19.3B per year (increase in U.S. consumer's electric bill).
And since as of 2010 there were 114,800,000 U.S. Households
$19.3B per year divided by 114,800,000 works out to about $160 per year, per U.S. Household.
Or about $13 a month extra (per U.S. consumer's electric bill, per the COC's own trumped up numbers).
It seems much less scary in that amortized context -- a small price to pay for having a Planet that will not be AS ravaged by those very costly Extreme Weather crises: Water-shortages, Droughts, Floods, Fire-storms, Ice-storms, Wind-storms, Sand-storms, Storm-surges, Hurricanes, Super-cell Tornado swarms ... etc, etc, ETC.
Besides, IF the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were really worried about all that "less disposable income" that us consumers would end up having -- shouldn't they be out there advocating for raising the Minimum Wage, instead of creating 4 Four Pinocchio strawmen -- to scare us into the GOP "free-market privatize-everything" mindset?