Recent Comment
Share
The Waxman-Markey climate bill passed the House on Friday, but it still has to face the Senate and the changes that body may require. There has been a lot of controversy over the many aspects of the bill, particularly relating to the coal industry, cap and trade and whether it's strong enough legislation to make a difference, but the lovely people over at the NRDC have pointed out one glowingly positive element of the bill. They've calculated that the bill will end up saving American households an average of $13.93 a month on gas.
The bill includes funding for fuel-efficient vehicles, which, in addition to the fuel efficiency standards already adopted, the NRDC calculates will lead to a 25 percent increase in fuel efficiency by 2020. So, even with rising gas prices, the increase in fuel efficiency will still slash our monthly gas bills. The group estimates the monthly savings for each state, and they range from $5.50 a month to more than $23 a month. I'm lucky enough to live in a state where I could see savings of almost $22 a month.
An interesting thing to point out is that these gas savings almost negate the cost of the bill for the average family, which is estimated to be $175 per year by the US Budget Office. The decrease in gas spending will save the average family about $167 a year, meaning the bill will only cost $8 a year per family. Families in some states will actually see a net gain.
It's easy to listen to all the pundits and all the partisan opinions on this legislation and to be discouraged, but I appreciate the NRDC putting at least part of it into perspective. Fighting climate change will require money and sacrifices, but there will be a whole host of ways in which it will pay off. In this case, in cash.
via Treehugger
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by The Author, June 29, 2009
Granted, this legislation is a joke in terms of having any real impact in combating climate-change, but this almighty 'dollar metric' is still being used to evaluate it and I think that's approaching the entire thing from the wrong perspective. But this is the perspective most in the U.S. look at everything with. So it's no surprise that you have to translate preventing environmental catastrophe for everyone by quantifying the amount of dollars that each individual will have to spend or make in the process. It's sad that we've become that superficial and disconnected as a society to look at everything in this manner.
-
- +2
-
-
written by no one, June 30, 2009
They are projecting that the climate bill will cause gasoline prices to fall!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Cameron, June 30, 2009
To "The Author" you are a great person. You are 'high minded' and you don't care about money. That's great. You are a perfect candidate for living a life of poverty and giving your money for your pet environmental causes.
-
- -1
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
These calculations are meaningless. The NRDC didn't put anything in perspective. This press release is a perfect example of twisting data to meaningless lengths.
On another note: 25% more efficient average fuel economy. Are they actually saying we're going to see less than a 25% increase in fuel costs in the next decade? The last decade has seen fuel prices go from near a $1 to $3-$4 a gallon. 300-400% increases.
The opportunity to buy a car that gets 45-60 miles to the gallon (which is all we're really talking about by 2020, if we're lucky) isn't going to offset the price increases we've already seen, much less the ones that will surely occur even before the effects of cap and trade.
Cap and Trade is another in a long line of attempts to use tax policy to change behavior. Some of them have worked, some haven't. But it's a tax, plain and simple, and taxes increase the cost of everything.
It may be that those increased costs are worth it if behavior changes and everyone gets more efficient. But its also possible that increased cost ~ less consumption ~ recession ~ less investment in new, more efficient technology.