Yesterday’s House passage of cap-and-trade legislation designed to confront climate change is a landmark achievement, the first tangible step taken by the country that emits more greenhouse gas per capita than anyone in the world.
The bill itself still faces a tough test in the Senate. Passage is far from assured, and without similar actions by other major emitting countries, it won’t mean much. But it does finally demonstrate to the rest of the world that the United States is prepared to do its part, which puts the pressure on them to follow suit.
The bill itself, the product of a thousand political compromises, also isn’t perfect. But it also isn’t what its hysterical opponents claim it is. As Bryan Walsh acknowledges in Time:
… critics have vastly overstated the likely cost. In fact, they’re all but lying. During the House debate, Republican whip Eric Cantor, using numbers from an American Petroleum Institute study, said that the bill would eventually cost more than $3,000 per family per year — but those numbers assume that billions of tons worth of inexpensive carbon offsets won’t be available under the bill, which would significantly inflate the overall cost. That’s not going to happen. A more reliable study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecast that the bill would cost the average U.S. household $175 in higher energy costs annually by 2020 — and other studies estimate that the energy-efficiency provisions in the bill might even save Americans money over time.
When opponents are forced to lie so blatantly — in this case exaggerating the likely cost 17 times over — they don’t have much of an honest argument.