Back in April, The Weekly Standard's John McCormack set the record straight over claims that Republicans' lied about how much cap and trade would cost the average household. They put the cost at $3,128, which was based on an MIT study. The number was refuted by MIT professor John Reilly, who conducted the study, (he said it was actually $215 annually per household) which put bloggers and the media into a frenzy. But it turned out Republicans were right. Reilly would admit to The Weekly Standard that an error on his part meant his original estimate was inaccurate, that infact, the cost would be "$800 per household" -- but that wasn't the whole story.
Reilly estimates that "the amount of tax collected" through companies would equal $3,128 per household--and "Those costs do get passed to consumers and income earners in one way or another"--but those costs have "nothing to do with the real cost" to the economy. Reilly assumes that the $3,128 will be "returned" to each household. Without that assumption, Reilly wrote, "the cost would then be the Republican estimate [$3,128] plus the cost I estimate [$800].
As we know, that money is not being returned, meaning that, based on this particular study, the annual cost per household would be over $3,900. The bottom line: Cap and trade will cost you a lot of money, all to fight "global warming."
But, a new poll shows that Americans aren't willing to see their energy bills get bigger to fight global warming. Nearly 80 percent say a mere $50/month increase to their energy bill would be hardship -- and the cost of cap and trade would be atleast 5 times a much. Just under 60 percent "are unwilling to pay any more than they currently pay for electricity to combat climate change." The message is clear: not one more dime to combat global warming. Times are tough enough, Americans aren't interested in seeing their energy bills go up.
Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation looks at the newly revised Waxman-Markey bill, and finds no improvement.
For the most part, the changes focused on the distribution of the allowance revenue--the equivalent of tax revenue.
There was also a slight easing of targeted emissions reductions for 2020, which resulted in a marginally lower economic impact. However, the new distribution of allowances created a less efficient pattern of government expenditures and more than offset the gain from the lower cap for 2020.