Climate Change Dialogue Report

Our Montana Climate Change Dialogue got some good discussion going on the economic impacts of climate change. Up to this point in the debate, there has been plenty of discussion on whether global warming is happening and if humans are the cause. Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough debate about how climate change legislation may negatively impact our state and national economy without bringing any noticeable benefit to the environment.

The speakers at our Dialogue yesterday discussed these impacts to Montana's economy in detail, and lawmakers must address these concerns before they move forward with any climate change legislation. For example, the Lieberman-Warner bill (carbon cap-and-trade program) will raise electricity prices, gasoline prices and cause up to 5,000 Montanans to lose their jobs. All that with only bringing a 3% reduction worldwide in carbon dioxide levels by 2050.

The experts yesterday aren't alone in their projections. The EPA recently conducted a study that showed $230 billion dollar hit to the American economy. There are many other studies showing similar results. Senator Joe Lieberman, co-author of the bill, admitted that his bill would cost "hundreds of billions of dollars." Who's going to pay for all those changes that do next to nothing to lower carbon dioxide emissions worldwide? You and me - the consumers. No one projection is a crystal ball, but most studies show our economy will take a hit from climate change legislation.

What was especially troubling was the reaction to these forecasts from Eric Stern of the Governor's office. He likens many of these studies to the cigarette companies saying smoking is good for you. Clever, but not exactly well thought out. I think that analogy is more applicable to the people who are buying into climate change legislation that shows no positive results worldwide. They are trying to say there are no negative impacts to electricity prices, gasoline prices and jobs. 

How many jobs is the administration willing to sacrifice for climate change legislation that shows no environmental impact worldwide? How high can electricity and gasoline prices go in this process? Is the administration going to demand a cost-benefit analysis for climate change legislation here in Montana?

Generally, if there are going to be negative impacts to the state and national economy, people want to know what they are going to get out of it. So far, it doesn't look like anything. If lawmakers want to tackle global warming, emerging players like China, India and others have to be a part of the equation. Otherwise, passing climate change legislation in Montana alone, or the U.S. alone, is unilateral disarmament.

Comments

[Wild Bill]

Jon, can I bum a smoke?

[montanamainstreetblog]

If Eric Stern says its okay, then sure!