“In his February 24, 2009 Joint Session address, President Obama called for a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program, underscoring his commitment to domestic climate policy. While such a program can yield environmental benefits that justify its costs, it will raise energy prices and impose annual costs on the order of [REDACTION] dollars. At the same time, given the Administration’s proposal to auction all emission allowances, a cap-and-trade program could generate federal receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually.”

So there you have it, from an internal Treasury Department document that cap-and-trade could generate federal receipts, i.e. tax revenue, in the range of $100 to $200 billion a year. McCullagh reports that at the upper end of that range, cap-and-trade would cost every American household an extra $1,761 a year.

Does that cost sound familiar to you? The Heritage Foundation has long predicted that:

“The annual cost of emissions permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2012 and could exceed $390 billion by 2035.”

“Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1% of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation.”

That’s another prediction offered up without any details as to timeline or the effects of this scheme, not just on increased costs for families but on businesses and job losses.

These internal memos confirm what the Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institution and the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) all agree on — that cap-and-trade will produce “significant losses in employment and gross domestic product.”

According to Heritage:

“The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that, for the average year over the 2012-2035 timeline, job loss will be 1.1 million greater than the baseline assumptions. By 2035, there is a projected 2.5 million fewer jobs than without a cap-and-trade bill. The average GDP lost is $393 billion, hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. From 2012 to 2035, the accumulated GDP lost is $9.4 trillion (in 2009 dollars). The average of the climate tax revenue–what the government gets to spend or give away–is $236 billion from 2012 through 2035 and adds up to $5.7 trillion in tax collections.”

Brookings concluded:

“The Brookings analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill finds loss in personal consumption of $1-2 trillion in present value. The more stringent carbon targets in subsequent years produce even higher costs. Brookings projects that an additional 8 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions increases costs 45 percent. GDP in the United States would be lower by 2.5 percent in 2050, and unemployment would be 0.5 percent higher (1.7 million fewer jobs) in the first decade below the baseline or without cap and trade. The total allowance revenue (tax revenue) generated by 2050 would be $9 trillion.”

And, the NBCC predicted:

“The National Black Chamber of Commerce found the following adverse effects from Waxman-Markey: In 2015, GDP would be 1 percent ($170 billon) below the “no cap-and-trade bill” baseline. In 2030, GDP will be 1.3 percent ($350 billon) below the baseline, and by 2050 the study projects a reduction in GDP of 1.5 percent ($730 billion). The study also projects higher unemployment of 2.3-2.7 million jobs in each year of the policy through 2030–after accounting for “green job” creation.”

Treasury’s $100 to $200 billion a year estimate is a private admission that Heritage, Brookings and the NBCC have it right. But, the figure stops shorts of examining the widespread effects this huge tax scheme will have as it raises costs for consumers and simultaneously forces businesses to cut jobs.

“In particular, the Heritage analysis projects that by 2035 the economic impacts (in constant 2009 dollars) of this bill are:

• Gasoline prices will rise 58 percent (or $1.38);
• Natural gas prices will rise 55 percent;
• Heating oil prices will rise 56 percent;
• Electricity prices will rise 90 percent;
• A family of four can expect its per-year energy costs to rise by $1,241;
• Including taxes, a family of four will pay an additional $4,609 per year;
• A family of four will reduce its consumption of goods and services by up to $3,000 per year, as its income and savings fall;
• Aggregate GDP losses will be $9.4 trillion;
• Aggregate cap-and-trade energy taxes will be $5.7 trillion;
• Job losses will be nearly 2.5 million; and
• The national debt will rise an additional $12,803 per person ($51,212 per family of four).

The income losses, the job losses, the tax increases, and the mounting debt all get worse over the coming decades. The Waxman-Markey bill forces a bad deal on a generation that does not have the option to turn it down.

The $9.4 trillion of lost income, the 2.5 million lost jobs, the $5.0 trillion of additional national debt, and the $5.7 trillion in new taxes will buy no more than a 0.2 degree (Celsius) moderation in world temperature increases by 2100 and no more than a 0.05 degree reduction by 2050.”

Christopher Horner, the CEI scholar who requested the documents put it best, “They’re not telling you the cost — they’re not telling you the benefit, what are they telling you? They’re just talking about global salvation.”

So says Warren Buffett, Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and perhaps even more importantly, one of the President’s biggest supporters in the economic realm. No truer words were spoken about the energy bill passed by the House on Friday night.

Despite the significant number of skeptics of the man-made global warming theory, President Obama and his fellow liberals have wholly bought into this theory and made it a cornerstone of their energy policy. In his Saturday address, the President called the bill passed this week “a jobs bill.” Their argument is that reducing reliance on foreign oil will trigger investments and spending in new programs which will in turn create jobs. Sounds familiar? Isn’t this what the stimulus bill was supposed to do? And, how has that worked out so far?

That logic, that ‘investing’, code for racking up huge debts, would create jobs and even help bring in private capital from the sidelines has not worked as far as the stimulus is concerned. With unemployment nearing double digits, 30% of voters believe that stimulus is hurting the economy. According to that same Rasmussen poll, only 31% say the stimulus has helped the economy, down 3% from last month. These concerns have caused GOP members to start asking, where are the jobs this administration promised to create? Even worse, a staggering 76% of voters are wise enough to recognize that stimulus money will be wasted, while 46% believe that all new stimulus spending should be blocked altogether.

With liberals pushing energy reform, it’s about to get a lot worse for those struggling to make ends meet. On the campaign trail, then-candidate Obama often repeated the promise that no family making under $250,000 a year would face any tax increases. With the House passing the cap and tax bill, the President is just one step away from breaking this promise. The Heritage Foundation has calculated that cap & trade will increase heating bills by 56%, raise gas prices by 58% and raise electricity by as much as 90%. I guess President Obama meant no one in that tax bracket would face a direct tax increase?

In fact, Mr. Buffett is not the only Obama supporter to see the plan for what it really is — a tax in a time of recession, an economy killer. The left-leaning Brookings Institution concluded that cap and trade will decrease GDP by 2.5% by the year 2050 and that 35-40% of coal-related jobs would be shed by 2025, with the economy taking the biggest hit that year.

This so-called cap and trade scheme is just another route through which the government can intrude into the private sector and exert control over private business. The American Institute for Economic Research put it best when they pointed out that if renewable resources “are as advertised – clean, unlimited, and free – it would seem they would take over all by themselves and not require complex and expensive schemes like cap and trade.”

*Originally published June 28, 2009 on the American Issues Project Blog, here.