Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said Wednesday claims by critics that controlling greenhouse gases will undermine the economy ignore the financial benefits of shifting to cleaner energy that does not contribute to global warming.
Waxman, opening a hearing on climate legislation, said critics argue that there is a fundamental conflict between economic growth and clean energy. But he said "that is a false choice" and that the nation's economic future and clean energy -- in his words -- "are inextricably intertwined." Waxman's bill would cut emissions by 80 percent.
That just isn't true. Democrats have been running with John Reilly's claim from Politifact that the quote of $3128 price tag for each family for that the Republicans have been quoting is false. However, the expert that said that the GOP was "just wrong" has since debunked his own claim:
During a lengthy email exchange last week with THE WEEKLY STANDARD, MIT professor John Reilly admitted that his original estimate of cap and trade's cost was inaccurate. The annual cost would be "$800 per household", he wrote. "I made a boneheaded mistake in an excel spread sheet. I have sent a new letter to Republicans correcting my error (and to others)."
While $800 is significantly more than Reilly's original estimate of $215 (not to mention more than Obama's middle-class tax cut), it turns out that Reilly is still low-balling the cost of cap and trade by using some fuzzy logic. In reality, cap and trade could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year.
The Weekly Standard article above goes into great detail to explain their findings.
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), former Energy Committe Chairman, even admitted today that cap and trade isn't just a tax, but it's also a big one. It'll drive the energy prices through the roof.