Unspecified energy savings, “green jobs,” and the health costs of global warming are usually cited as cost savings for climate change legislation, and Hurowitz pointed to these as reasons why the costs would be offset. Moon admitted that those factors were not taken into account in the Tax Foundation report.
But a number of other environmental organizations echoed Landrith in saying that such promises were vague and easily contradicted by alternative evidence. Zonia Pino, a Legislative Specialist with the Heartland Institute, said that “green” energies were unproven, and that even unproven benefits would be subject to significant lag time before they could even be realized.
Pino also mentioned failed cap-and-trade schemes in Europe as an example of why an American system is destined to fail. Corruption and cronyism led to money lost and no reduction in emissions.
“The private sector tends to get these things done better. The government in itself can’t force it,” she said.
Rep Pitts, (R-Penn), a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, said it was obvious that cap-and-trade system would adversely affect those with low incomes.
“Everyone uses energy, but lower income people spend a higher percentage of their income on energy. These families would see prices rise on all of the products they purchase—anything that requires energy to be manufactured, grown, produced, or shipped—in short, everything,” he said.