They will be hardest hit
(MRC) While discussing the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, administrator Gina McCarthy admitted who would be hit the “hardest†by the federal climate regulations.
“We know that low-income minority communities would be hardest hit,†McCarthy said.
She prefaced her statement by saying that the cost increases to Americans as a result of the regulations would be, “at most, a gallon of milk a month increase out the gate which tapers off to incredible savings by 2013 (WT note: that’s a typo, she said 2030).â€
Ms. McCarthy didn’t explain how she came up with that particular assessment.
No, she didn’t. One estimate from NERA, which opposes Obama’s Clean Power Plan, has energy costs rising 12-17%. The Energy Information Administration estimates a 4% increase by 2030. Remember, any increases in energy costs circulate through the economy. The end user isn’t just paying more for energy at home, but also in the cost of goods and services, as they pay more.
Now, in worse case scenario, this could make the average bill rise $240 a year. Cult of Climastrology members will certainly think this is no big deal, as they sip cocktails at fancy parties, but, for poor people, this is real money. Especially as other costs rise.
(Prospect Magazine) But energy efficiency programs won’t save low- and fixed-income families. While the median family spends about 5 cents out of every dollar on energy costs, low-income families spend about 20 cents of every dollar.
It should be noted that, first, things never seem to work out as well as government employees and politicians say they will. How many times has a government program exploded costs? How many times has a project suddenly exploded into cost over-runs? In 1965, Medicare was estimated to cost $9 billion a year by 1990. The actual 1990 cost? $67 billion. All the social net programs, such as Welfare and SNAP (food stamps), had estimates much lower than originally thought. Rarely does a government program, rule, and/or regulation actually end up cost what they estimate, or lower.
Second, it should be noted that much of the CPP plan anticipates that consumers will use much less power. Probably because it will have become much more expensive, not because of efficiency.
Oh, and the overall outcome for this power plan? A supposed global temperature reduction of fifteen one-thousandths of a degree by 2100.
Uh, yeah.
Plus we pollute rivers, too!
[…] But it is OK, it is all about the “collective good” […]
I’ve always been amazed and amused by the people who can easily afford a gallon of milk telling people who struggle with buying groceries that the next proposal is oh-so-very-cheap.
[…] note from WT is from William Teach at The Pirate’s Cove, who also noted that McCarthy’s “gallon of milk” estimate isn’t quite […]
That’s how leftist government works. Make life hell for the most vulnerable of people, then make them dependent on leftist government programs in order to survive. Then label any dissenters as heartless haters who push wheelchairs over cliffs.
Another example of billionaires harming ordinary Americans:
De Leon and Steyer have been super-glued together of late. As the Bakersfield Californian reported, “Steyer, a major donor to Democrats nationwide, is pouring money into the California Capitol, and de Leon is introducing bills that echo Steyer’s environmental agenda.†Steyer has appeared at hearings for de Leon’s Senate Bill 350, which would mandate a 50 percent cut in gasoline consumption in the Golden State by 2030. The only way to achieve that goal would be to increase prices substantially. Hardest hit by Proposition 39 and the scorched-earth environmentalism of SB 350 would be de Leon’s own constituents in East Los Angeles, one of the poorest areas in a state with the highest poverty rate in the nation. Working- and middle-class Californians with long commutes or who drive trucks for a living would suffer the consequences.
http://www.city-journal.org/2015/cjc0821js.html