Job-Killing Cap-and-Trade Schemes

Americans for Prosperity: Environment New Jersey Spews More RGGI Lies into Atmosphere

Another Bogus “Study” Belies the Facts about Job-Killing Cap-and-Trade Scheme

BOGOTA, NJ – Americans for Prosperity, the state’s leading grassroots, free-market organization, is blasting the radical environmental group Environment New Jersey for blatant lies and misleading statements about the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) Cap-and-Trade scheme.

In response, AFP state director Steve Lonegan issued the following statement:

“The eco-zealots at Environment New Jersey continue to repeat a number of debunked claims about the failed RGGI scheme, including the absurd notion that this hidden tax on electricity somehow fuels economic growth.

“Given that RGGI’s emissions targets have already been met, one can only conclude that the only ‘green’ the radical environmentalists at Environment New Jersey care about is the green in our wallets and pocketbooks.

“Environment New Jersey’s real desire is to keep in place a slush fund that will use ratepayer dollars to fund their pet projects and other ‘green’ rip-offs in order to keep alive their utopian environmental dreams. Meanwhile the rest of us are left to suffer the consequences in the way of lost jobs and by being socked with higher rates.

“No amount of bogus studies they foist upon is will alter this reality.” ENVIRONMENT NJ CLAIM:

“According to ‘A Record of Leadership: How Northeastern States are Cutting Global Warming Pollution and Building a Clean Economy,’

New Jersey and the 9 other states that participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) have cut per capita carbon dioxide emissions 20 percent faster than the rest of the nation, even as the region’s gross product per capita grew 87 percent faster than the rest of the United States.”

FACT: According to RGGI’s own consultants, the cap-and-trade program is unlikely to have any impact on reducing carbon emissions until the Year 2030 (Source: New Jersey Watchdog)

FACT: Falling natural gas prices and reduced demand have been the primary factors in reduced carbon emissions; not RGGI (Source: New Jersey Watchdog)

FACT: There is no proof that RGGI has created net jobs or increased economic growth; such claims are based on a ‘hypothetical simulation’ and “modeling’ forecast with no basis in reality (Source: Institute for Energy Research)

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen-leaders committed to advancing every individual’s right to economic freedom and opportunity.

Senator Stabenow Porker of the Month

Washington, D.C.) – Today, in recognition of the potfuls of taxpayer gold that have been squandered on subsidizing ill-advised green energy programs, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) named Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) its March 2012 Porker of the Month.

Sen. Stabenow was chosen for submitting amendment #1812 to S. 1813, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, which would have extended federal subsidies for green energy, including alternative fueling stations, biofuels, refined coal, energy-efficient appliances, and wind power, among others. Many of the initiatives singled out for continued subsidies in Sen. Stabenow’s amendment, such as the Treasury Department’s 1603 grants, the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit, and the tax credit for Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling, were expanded or begun as part of the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (stimulus).

Fortunately, the amendment was defeated on March 13 when it garnered just 49 votes in its favor, 11 short of the 60 it required. Taxpayers need look no further than Advanced Ethanol Council Executive Director Brooke Coleman’s reaction to the amendment’s failure to know that it was a win for their wallets; he claimed that lawmakers “missed an opportunity” by failing to extend the Cellulosic Biofuels Producer Tax Credit, which eases the way for America’s expensive ethanol program.

Sen. Stabenow’s amendment exemplifies the public policy fallacy gripping the Obama administration and many lawmakers, which holds that the key to unlocking a green energy surge is simply more taxpayer money. But as Washington Post columnist Charles Lane put it in his March 5, 2012 column, “Advocates insist that the government should help them crank up mass production of electric vehicles. Once economies of scale kick in, they argue, electric vehicles can compete…Four decades after the 1973 oil crisis, this logic is wearing thin. Any company that figured out how to build a practical mass-market electric car would be swimming in cash. That no one has done so suggests we are bumping up against the limits of nature, not just politics or economics.”

“When the stimulus originally passed, one of the biggest concerns, beyond its exorbitant initial cost, was that supposedly temporary programs would become permanent and waste taxpayer dollars in perpetuity,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz. “Sen. Stabenow has demonstrated that those fears were not unfounded. The past six months have been marred by examples of the futility of picking winners in energy markets, which already have access to private capital. Failures at Solyndra, Ener1, Beacon, Tesla, Amonix, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, SunPower, and others make it obvious that the government has about as much chance of stumbling across a four-leaf clover as it does of being successful as a venture capitalist,” added Schatz. “Not only should these programs not be extended, they should be terminated.”

For attempting to compound the federal government’s costly foray into green energy investment, and doing her best to bury taxpayer greenbacks at the end of the rainbow, Senator Debbie Stabenow is CAGW’s March 2012 Porker of the Month.

CAGW is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. Porker of the Month is a dubious honor given to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers.

Potty training the President

When Barack Obama took office, it happened because he duped the vulnerable
by claiming he had the answer for everything. With his oratorical skills he was
able to mesmerize the gullible.
We now know it is his only skill!

On the job training hasn't cut it. It's like trying to teach your two year old potty
training and tying a shoe lace. The mess and stink is memorable and the tightly
knotted laces impossible to undo.

I don't know how many future administrations it will require to clean up Obama's
stinking mess and untie costly commitments attributed to the ineptness of the
arrogant, egotistical, braggart in office at the present time.

I respect the office of the presidency, but this leaves me open to criticism for being disrespectful to the man, and it's because he has no respect for the office.

On a recent TV interview he boasted he deserves another four years because
of his accomplishments; 16 trillion dollar debt and growing, the collapse of the real estate market, antagonizing Catholics and other Christians, blocking all attempts to curb our dependency of foreign oil, causing sky-rocketing gas prices and backing his election contributing greenie cronies on speculating schemes with taxpayer money, and insulting Israel to name a few.......four more years?
I don't think so!!!!!

By George Giftos
Click to read George Giftos at Canada Free Press HERE

Green Effort Failures Cost Taxpayers Millions

State Audit Shows Most "Green" Schools Cost More and Are Less Efficient Than Average School

Recently the Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee (JLARC) released its report on the state's green buildings requirements. The title of the report indicates that the "Impact on Energy Use is Mixed." A casual look at the report shows that the word "mixed" is a generous assessment.

The evidence in the report shows the buildings add millions in costs but deliver little in the way of energy savings or environmental improvement. Here are a few of the conclusions.

•For 14 schools studied in the report, the state and districts paid an additional $10 million to comply with the rules, an average of 2.6 percent more than buildings built before the regulations were imposed.

•Energy savings projections for the buildings are wildly inaccurate. Green building advocates often point to projected energy use to argue the buildings will be more efficient. JLARC found that energy projections for the nine buildings it examined were 52 percent lower than the actual use once buildings opened.

•Of nine "green" schools examined, only one was the most efficient in its school district. Five of the nine schools were actually less efficient than the average school of any age in the district. Most of the new "green" schools are less efficient than buildings that are decades old.

•Most "green" schools improved their energy efficiency over time. The data demonstrate, however, this is primarily because the schools were so inefficient in their first year. For example, Grove Elementary in Marysville ranked in the 26th percentile in energy efficiency of all similar buildings according to the Energy Star rating. The subsequent 19 percent improvement in efficiency was primarily a result of it starting out from such a low point.

•Most "green" schools do not meet Energy Star standards. Eight of 13 "green" schools would not achieve Energy Star rating, awarded to those buildings in the top 25 percent of "similar buildings." This is especially noteworthy because many "similar buildings" are much older. Even those that do meet the standards are still poor when compared to other local schools. Sherwood Forest Elementary school in Bellevue is the 12th most efficient of 16 elementary schools in Bellevue. Rachel Carson Elementary in the Lake Washington School District is 8th of 27. This indicates both that the Energy Star rating is a questionable measure of performance for these buildings and that district officials were building efficient buildings long before the new regulations took effect.

•JLARC's study notes that of $455,826 spent by the Spokane School District to bring Lincoln Heights Elementary up to the "green" requirements, only $81,000, about 18%, was spent on the energy efficiency elements. The other 82 percent was spent to meet other elements of the standard that did not yield savings. Put simply, the mandates required the district to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars simply to meet the law's guidelines.

Most importantly, the report shows the "green" building standards do not pay for themselves in any reasonable time frame. Examining two "green" schools, JLARC notes the payback time ranged from 27 to 30 years. Even this is generous for two reasons.

First, these don't include a discount rate. They assume that paying a dollar today to save a dollar in thirty years makes sense, when clearly it does not. When adjusting for rising energy costs (which makes the payback time shorter) and the discounted value of money (which increases payback time), the time to recover the costs increases to 43 years. Since no school building goes 43 years without changes and improvements, the "green" requirements will never pay for themselves.

Second, the study looks at only two schools. One of them, Lincoln Heights elementary in Spokane, is the best performing "green" school in that district. If the study had examined Lidgerwood or Ridgeview, two "green" schools which perform worse than Lincoln Heights, the payback time might have been even longer. It is unclear, however, because the JLARC study does not report the additional construction costs for those schools.

When the green schools legislation was passed in 2005, the Washington Conservation Voters and other advocates promised the schools would cut energy use by about 30 percent and the buildings would quickly pay for themselves. JLARC has now confirmed that this is false, backing up the analysis we have been providing for the past six years.

Given this failure, what will the legislature do? If the goal is to improve energy efficiency and put funding where it will make the best impact on the environment, the legislature will remove these failed regulations. If, however, adopting "green" building legislation is primarily about cultivating a "green" political image, little will be done because changing the rules will risk the political benefits candidates received by supporting the legislation. Time will tell which is more important to legislators.

By Todd Myers
Director, Center for the Environment


Read More at Washington Policy Center