Environmental Law

New Economic Impact Report on Lieberman-Warner Fails to Settle Debate

By Dennis Pfaff and Kevin Livingston, Editors

A new federal economic analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act shows that the measure wouldn't impede strong growth in the United States; whereas a new federal study of the bill forecasts a gloomy future of  higher energy prices and problems for industry.

It's the same document. Just depends on who's looking at it.

Produced by the Department of Energy's statistical arm, the Energy Information Administration, the new report seems to have done little to foster agreement between the warring sides in the battle over the greenhouse gas reduction bill. The Senate is poised to take up the bill, sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va., in June.

Like a previous government analysis of the bill, which would cap emissions and establish a trading program, the new report shows some economic impacts but it also predicts by mid-century the legislation would produce better than 50 percent cuts in the production of heat-trapping gases (see text of report here). 

According to the new study, the drag on the gross domestic product between 2009 to 2030 would be between 0.2 percent and 0.6 percent. The bill's impacts would fall more heavily on industry than on other parts of the economy, the report predicted. While comparing the two analyses is difficult because of differences between them, the overall economic effects forecast by the new document appear to be generally smaller than those found by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in its  analysis put forward earlier this year (see Climate Law Update story here).  

Perhaps not surprisingly, supporters and opponents of congressional action to address climate change saw the energy department report dramatically differently. Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, a leading Republican global warming skeptic (pictured), said the analysis showed the bill "is wrong for America." Environmental groups and congressional supporters of the legislation saw it as confirming the bill as economically benign.

"Two separate government analyses have now come to the same conclusion," Lieberman said in a statement (see text here).  "Our bill curbs global warming without harming the U.S. economy."

Lieberman said the new study predicted impacts "below even the modest figures" cited by the EPA He said the energy department also found that the bill would benefit wind and solar, as well as carbon capture and storage technology.       

The Environmental Defense Fund, which supports using markets to tackled climate change, also lauded the study's conclusions, as did the Natural Resources Defense Council (see press statements here and here). Environmental Defense recently released its own analysis of Lieberman-Warner, concluding that economic models showed cap-and-trade "consistent with long-term economic growth (see Climate Law Update story here).”

Both environmental groups characterized the economic pull of the legislation as virtually unnoticeable.

"It's like two cars driving different routes from New York to L.A. and predicting one will get there at noon and the other will arrive at 12:45," said Environmental Defense's climate campaign director Steve Cochran in the group's statement. NRDC said bill's impact would be equivalent to a two-month delay in growth.

Environmental Defense also again noted, as it has in the past with other studies, that the document didn't look at the price of doing nothing, including higher insurance costs, damage from droughts and more intense storms.

But not so fast. Inhofe, the ranking minority member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, had his own take on the study, which also foresaw potentially higher prices for coal and natural gas. Inhofe focused the study's predictions of higher energy costs for households, and the consequences for industry. He also said the energy department analysts also based some assumptions on a "massive and unrealistic" boom in the construction of new nuclear plants (see statement here). Said Inhofe:

"Only in Washington could higher energy prices be characterized as not negatively impacting the U.S. economy. If Democrats have their way, Americans will pay significantly more at the pump, in their homes and in many cases, with their jobs, all to accomplish an undetectable impact on the climate."

The EDF's Cochran might have had Inhofe in mind when he declared the debate over:

“Anyone claiming the Lieberman-Warner bill will bring economic doom can now go sit with those still saying climate change is a hoax. It’s time for the Can’t-Do crowd to retire the scare tactics.”

But there's little evidence the two sides will see eye-to-eye anytime soon.

(Photo: Sen. James Inhofe's office)

Full post as published by Climate Law Update on April 30, 2008 (boomark / email).