The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. IER maintains that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges and, as such, are critical to the well-being of individuals and society.
The Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) has released a new study [.pdf] touting the economic rationale of the Waxman-Markey climate bill. Titled “The Other Side of the Coin,” the study decries the tendency of recent analyses to focus just on the economic damages of Waxman-Markey, while ignoring all of the alleged benefits that would accrue from reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. The IPI study concludes that “the benefits of H.R. 2454 could likely exceed the costs by nine-to-one, or more” (p. 2).
There are so many problems with the IPI’s approach that it’s hard to know where to begin.
There are two futures for energy, depending on which socioeconomic system we adopt. The free-market promises a bright energy future, while the opposite path of political energy is dark. In that sense energy differs little from other goods and services (such as health care): its supply will depend on whether economic laws are allowed to work or are hampered by political intervention.
“Energy prices certainly would surge under cap-and-trade. President Obama said so. His budget director said so. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said so. And most recently, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent statistical government agency, said so.”
Since he took office, Secretary of Interior Salazar has aggressively limited domestic energy production from efficient sources of energy. He revoked oil and gas leases in Utah, delayed taking action to open up additional areas for offshore energy development, and halted a program to allow commercial oil shale leasing. All of these programs would have created American jobs without imposing additional costs on taxpayers.
Washington, DC – As our chief global competitors continue to expand their access to job-creating, economy-strengthening energy resources, the U.S. Senate Environment Committee held another hearing today focused on subsidizing inefficient, intermittent, and expensive energy sources, while discouraging access to affordable and reliable ones.
Just over a month ago, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey energy tax.[1] Much of the debate focused on how much the bill will cost Americans. For example, the Congressional Budget office claimed the cap and trade section of the bill would only cost $175 a year in 2020, but this claim has been thoroughly debunked. The real question is how much confidence should we have in the modeling assumptions that the CBO and other modelers rely upon?
WASHINGTON, DC – Under the headline “Russia to drill for oil off Cuba,” the BBC recently reported that, “Russia is to begin oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, after signing a deal with Cuba, says Cuban state media.” In response to this development, Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), a free-market energy think-tank, issued the following statement:
Just over a month ago, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey energy tax.[1] Much of the debate focused on how much the bill will cost Americans. For example, the Congressional Budget office claimed the cap and trade section of the bill would only cost $175 a year in 2020, but this claim has been thoroughly debunked. The real question is how much confidence should we have in the modeling assumptions that the CBO and other modelers rely upon?