Congressional Budget Office

Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations 0
Posted 6 days, 18 hours ago The debate over the economics of climate change boils down to that very calculation: how much are we willing to pay today to avoid climate risks in the future? The simple fact is that as we continue to use fuels that contribute to global warming today, we place major economic burdens on our kids and grandkids tomorrow.
Is the Congressional Budget Office trying to kill humanity? 1
Posted 1 month, 1 week ago Although director Doug Elmendorf recognized that his estimates do not take into account the economic impacts of climate change, he testified that the changes that scientists call "catastrophic" would be barely noticeable in the U.S. economy.
Who's my CBO? Who's my little CBO schnookums?!

How CBO budget scoring devalues efficiency ... WITH PUPPIES! 9
Posted 1 month, 1 week ago The CBO is in the news again, with the usual suspects hyping its (in reality quite optimistic) economic analysis. In the spirit of actually learning something from this episode, here's a look at a serious issue: how the CBO's budget scoring undercounts the potential for efficiency, systematically distorting energy policy in ways that favor delay, compromise, and defensiveness. The good news is that properly accounting for efficiency opens the door to clean energy policy that's fiscally responsible and environmentally accountable.
Garbage in, garbage out, journalists in between, all but useless

Treasury memo hysteria shows media incapable of screening out junk 0
Posted 2 months ago
Is any piece of nonsense from right-wing opponents of clean energy policy too silly, too outrageous, to get its day in the national press spotlight? It would seem not.

Last week, CBS conservo-blogger Declan McCullagh breathlessly reported: "Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year." That figure spread like wildfire through right-wing blogs, then jumped to Glenn Beck, and eventually reached The Washington Post. Now Republican lawmakers are repeating it.

The number is completely and utterly misleading. At least in reference to current policy options, it's a lie. But now it's out there, forever part of conservative mythology and forever a "controversy" in the eyes of the establishment media. Is there any way it could have been stopped? Is there any way the next lie can be stopped?
Nerd wars!

Blogospheric passions run high on, um, the CBO report 0
Posted 5 months ago
After watching a tedious press conference this morning at which not a single question was asked about the Waxman-Markey bill (after Obama endorsed it!), I'm happy to see that somebody outside the dreary confines of "green blogging" is grappling with it. If it all happens to be obsessively focused on the CBO report, well, I'll take what I can get.

Let's take a walk through the last few days of action.
Waxman-Markey: We’d better try to get what we need 3
Posted 5 months ago
Once again Mick Jagger is right: “You can't always get what you want/But if you try sometimes you just might find/You get what you need.”

The House of Representatives is poised for its first-ever floor debate and series of votes on a landmark measure to reduce global warming pollution. This bill is revolutionary in its intent and, while imperfect in its means, it deserves the support of progressives.
Breaking: saving the world is affordable

CBO: Waxman-Markey pollution cuts cost little 0
Posted 5 months ago
Opponents of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, are acting like out-of-control auctioneers. They're trying to defeat the bill by raising cost estimates for the bill's clean-energy and global warming pollution reduction programs. But their wild estimates have been based on either perversions or distortions of independent government and university studies, or are partisan studies with rigged assumptions designed to produce outlandish estimates.

The Congressional Budget Office announced on Friday that the average American household would spend only a very modest amount each year to reduce global warming pollution under H.R. 2454. This independent analysis determined “that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household.” This is $3.36 per week—about the cost of one pound of 93 percent lean ground beef.

And the poorest 20 percent of households—those with incomes under $20,292 in 2007— “would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020,” according to the CBO.
Wait, what bill did you mean?

CBO: Household costs under Waxman-Markey likely much lower than report reflects 1
Posted 5 months, 1 week ago
Last Friday, the Congressional Budget Office answered some questions from Sen. John Kerry about its much-discussed report (PDF) on the costs of cap-and-trade.

You'll recall the report's principle conclusion: a cap-and-trade program would reduce the deficit over the next decade. Despite that positive outcome, the report contained some scary numbers, like the fact that the program would cost the average household $1,600 a year. Republicans have been playing such numbers for all they're worth.

CBO director Doug Elmendorf makes clear to Kerry that the net cost to households under the Waxman-Markey bill will likely be much lower than even the modest estimate in the CBO report.
What does the CBO report on Waxman-Markey actually tell us? (Not much). 2
Posted 5 months, 1 week ago
The Congressional Budget Office recently issued its report on the Waxman-Markey bill. The Washington Times soon trumpeted: "CBO puts hefty price tag on emissions plan: Obama's cap-and-trade system seen costing $846 billion."

This is quite misleading. Actually, the CBO report tells us virtually nothing about the economic costs of the bill or how much consumers will lose out of pocket. In fact, the way most people understand the idea of a budget deficit, it doesn't really say much about that either. CBO's analysis is based on some very technical accounting that can easily be misinterpreted. In particular, CBO treats the issuance of free carbon allowances quite differently than most people would expect.
What he means when he says 'my friends'

McCain wants a climate policy that benefits the rich 13
Posted 7 months ago
Don't be misled by the rhetoric: John McCain is advocating for a system that primarily benefits the very wealthy.