June 23, 2009
CBO: Cap-And-Trade to Cost $175 Per Household
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the U.S. cap-and-trade program will cost $22 billion annually, or about $175 per household, by 2020.
This figure includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy and of payments made to foreign entities under the program, reports CBO. However, it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in GHG emissions and the associated slowing of climate change, according to the CBO analysis.
The CBO report examines the average cost per household that would result from the implementation of the GHG cap-and-trade program under H.R. 2454, as well as how that cost would be spread among households with different levels of income.
Reducing emissions of GHGs would moderate the damage associated with climate change and the risk of significant damage, but it would also impose costs on the economy, reports CBO. In the case of carbon dioxide CO2 — which accounts for 85 percent of U.S. GHG emissions — higher costs would stem from the fact that most economic activity is based on fossil fuels that contain carbon and produce GHG emissions when burned, according to the analysis.
Under cap-and-trade, the federal government would put a limit on greenhouse gases from most sectors of the U.S. economy with the cap divided into billions of permits, reports Bloomberg News. Each permit is equivalent to one metric ton of carbon dioxide. CBO estimates that the price of an allowance would be $28 in 2020.
By annually reducing the supply of these permits, the cap-and-trade legislation written by House Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts would lower the limit on greenhouse gases to 17 percent less than 2005 levels by 2020, according to Bloomberg News.
The CBO analysis estimates that the legislation will cost the richest U.S. households $245 a year, and the poorest will see gains of $40 a year.
Advertisers
Enhance Sustainability. Improve Profitability.
Learn how at the SAP Sustainability Resource Center. >>
Unclear about the EPA's new GHG Rule?
Learn how it could affect your business. >>
EPA mandatory emissions reporting starts Jan 1st
CSA Standards can help your organization get ready for compliance. Find out how. >>
Best Practices: Product Environmental Compliance
How to achieve compliance at a significantly lower cost. Download the full report. >>
Join the Discussion
Recent Daily News [ see all ]
- 11/20/2009
- 11/19/2009
- 11/18/2009
- Ontario May Follow California’s Lead on TV Energy Efficiency
- EPA Is One Step Closer to New Ship Emissions Standards
- European Paper Industry Cuts CO2 Emissions by 42% since 1990
- CDP Launches Water Disclosure Project
- Whirlpool Cuts Water Use by Nearly 22% from 2004 to 2008
- National Grid Again Rejects High Costs of Offshore Wind
- California City’s Green Building Ordinance Applies to Commercial Buildings
- Agilent To Save $3.5M Over 10 Years With Solar
- S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
- Texas, China Wind Partners May Build U.S. Factory to Appease Critical Lawmaker
- Volvo, Mack Engines First to Meet 2010 EPA Emissions Standards
- Around the Web – Nike, Google, Nissan, Bush’s Green Library, WWF
- Fossil Fuel Emissions Rose 29% since 2000
- SEC Charges Four in ‘Green’ Investment Ponzi Scheme
- No Sunny Skies for Two Solar Projects in Texas, California
- Canada Delays GHG Emissions Regs, Russia Ups Emissions Cuts
- News Corp. Taps Hara for Energy Efficiency, Environmental Management
- Rising Sea Levels Would Hit U.S. East Coast Hardest
- Building an Energy-Efficient Data Center Using Virtualization Technology
- Trade Group on EPA Chemical Regs: ‘If Everything is a Priority, Then Nothing is a Priority’
- A/V Equipment Gets New Energy Star Requirements
- By Scaling Back Catalogs, JC Penney to Save 30% on Paper
- Around the Web – Starbucks, EcoFactor, UPS, Brownfields, Eco-Labels
- Subaru Touts Energy & Environmental Initiatives
- U.S., China Partner on Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency
- Green Buildings Do Double Duty: Reduce Energy Use, Lower Financial Risk
- UK to Ease Rules for On-Site Renewable Energy Installations
- Intel Eyes Wind, Electric Cars
- Nike Tops Annual Climate Action Scores
- Iranian Tanker Firm to Cut Fuel Use 28%
- Corporate Jetsetters Can be Carbon Offsetters
- USPS Energy Use Down 9% From 2005 to 2008
- From Solar Applications to Christmas, LEDs Light the Night
- EPA May Regulate Sulfur Dioxide Emissions on Hourly Basis
- MITEI: Sustainable Energy & Terawatt-Scale Photovoltaics
- Around the Web – Health Care & Energy, Shell, NBC
Charts [ see all ]
Popular Topics
Energy Efficiency
Data Center
Emissions
Facilities
Electricity
Sustainability
Water
Supply Chain
Efficiency
Green Marketing
Strategy & Leadership
Research
Fleets & Transportation
Carbon Finance
Conventional Energy
Clean Energy
Waste & Recycling
Paper & Packaging
Policy & Law
Utilities
Construction
Comments and Discussions
Environmental Leader on S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
"The survey respondents (the PDF report mentions 4,000 respondents in 38..."
Jake on UPS Trying New Hydraulic Hybrid Trucks
"A point of clarification: the Reuters press release referenced herein reports that 20 UPS will purchase..."
Custom Organic Shirts on S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
"90% of North Americans believe it is urgent to get a global climate..."
peter dublin on California City’s Green Building Ordinance Applies to Commercial Buildings
"Why energy efficiebnt regulation on buildings –..."
JEONG CHUN PHUOC on EU Poised to Give Heavy Industry Free Carbon Permits
"“Competitive Intelligence in Environmenting : A Holistic Deal for..."
Philip Vandenberg on Building an Energy-Efficient Data Center Using Virtualization Technology
"Rob has implemented many best practices for data centres..."
George Hoguet on Rising Sea Levels Would Hit U.S. East Coast Hardest
"Want to add some pressure into the system? Check out the Facebook group -NO TV..."





Reader Comments
The report is another ridiculous LIE of the Obama administration.
As per a leaked memo from the Obama administration, cap and trade would reduce household income by more than $7,000 each and every year.
http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/25508/Economic_Studies_Support_Leaked_Memo.html
Obama’s ACES Act (cap and trade), however, will cost us much, much more than $7,000 per household! It will cost many of us our businesses. It will cost many of us our jobs. It will cost all of us our freedoms and our future.
No patriotic and informed American can support the ACES Act (global warming/cap and trade scam), a huge Ponzy scheme that will kill the U.S. economy.
Cap and Trade “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification,” says famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence.
Cap and trade represents huge taxes and cost increases, which will hurt mostly the poor and the middle class. Cap and trade will give dictatorial powers to Obama and will further enrich his billionaire friends (Gore, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE, the United Nations, etc.) — all at our expense and at the expense of our children and grandchildren.
Those brainwashed to the point of wanting to destroy the economy to “prevent global warming” are behaving like the most primitive human beings who were duped into believing that human sacrifices would ensure them good weather. Human beings don’t have the power to control climate! And killing the economy will not help the environment. Poor countries can’t protect the environment. Just look at Haiti!
AntonioSosa | June 23rd, 2009
Nancy Pelosi along with her cronies condemmened the CBO figures for healthcare reform, saying they were too subjective and costs would be lower than CBO estimates. Now they tout CBO estimates for cap and trade. These flip-flops are not being reported and democrats continue to be arrogant because their supporters are ignorant of the truth
donna scala | July 5th, 2009