<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Republicans claim carbon bill impact on families that is off by—no kidding—98%]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by GMcP http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-01-republicans-carbon-lie/ Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:54:09 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-01-republicans-carbon-lie/1 MIT have issued a statement with a headline figure of $340 per family. Their 2015 figure is similar to that quoted above, but the costs rise in subsequent years.

]]> MIT have issued a statement with a headline figure of $340 per family. Their 2015 figure is similar to that quoted above, but the costs rise in subsequent years.

]]> Comment #2 by Garcilaso http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-01-republicans-carbon-lie/ Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:10:11 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-01-republicans-carbon-lie/2 Well, I'm confused, because the point of cap-and-trade is to raise energy caosts, albeit gradually, until folks switch to alternative fuels. Right?

But, whether the cost is $79/year per family of 2.56 people (Lane's figure) or $340/year per family of four (MIT's figure, via GMCP's comment above), I can't figure out how a jump in utility, gas, and food prices of either $6.58/month (Lane) or $28.33/month (MIT) is going to get people to switch to alternative energy sources. Is the price of a latte every other week or happy meals for the family twice a month really going to be enough to get people to switch to wind and solar?

Kate Sheppard pointed out last week that the President promised to use $15 billion in revenue to support alternative fuels, and Congress seems to be eyeing the rest of the revenue for things like healthcare reform (http://www.grist.org/article/2009-03-27-reid-says-dems-might-use/). So which is it? Is cap-and-trade really cheap, in which case it won't cost most people that much (but won't provide much incentive to change)? Or is it a source of revenue, i.e. an indirect tax?

]]> Well, I'm confused, because the point of cap-and-trade is to raise energy caosts, albeit gradually, until folks switch to alternative fuels. Right?

But, whether the cost is $79/year per family of 2.56 people (Lane's figure) or $340/year per family of four (MIT's figure, via GMCP's comment above), I can't figure out how a jump in utility, gas, and food prices of either $6.58/month (Lane) or $28.33/month (MIT) is going to get people to switch to alternative energy sources. Is the price of a latte every other week or happy meals for the family twice a month really going to be enough to get people to switch to wind and solar?

Kate Sheppard pointed out last week that the President promised to use $15 billion in revenue to support alternative fuels, and Congress seems to be eyeing the rest of the revenue for things like healthcare reform (http://www.grist.org/article/2009-03-27-reid-says-dems-might-use/). So which is it? Is cap-and-trade really cheap, in which case it won't cost most people that much (but won't provide much incentive to change)? Or is it a source of revenue, i.e. an indirect tax?

]]> Comment #3 by needy-student http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-01-republicans-carbon-lie/ Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:22:40 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-01-republicans-carbon-lie/3 If the projected cost is "a fortieth" of the GOP's number, then the GOP is actually 3900% off.  I'm confused.

]]> If the projected cost is "a fortieth" of the GOP's number, then the GOP is actually 3900% off.  I'm confused.

]]>