http://www.globalclimate.org/economic.htm Economic Impact - -. Global Climate Coalition A voice for business in the global warming debate CIimate Economics Climate Science Climate Chanue Primer What Others Are Savinq Climate Chanue in the News Climate Watch Brief Newsletter Climate Links GCC News Releases GCC Studies GCC Mission 1 of3 Economic impact of More doubts about the real cost of the Kyoto reinforced by Administration's commitment to the Kyoto Protocol were raised in October 1998 when the Energy EIA analysis Information Administration, the forecasting unit of tht U.S. Department of Energy, concluded that the price "Higher energyprices and the impact tag for Americans could be astonomically higher that of the higher prices on the broader what the Administration had been telling Congress U.S. economy will encourage and the public. consumers to reduce energy consumption by between and 78 Examples of the impact on the average pocketbook: percent in 201011Increases in electricity costs as high as 86 percent. Gasoline prices 66-cents a gallon higher in the worst case, compared with the Administration's estimate o --E'A Report 5.5 cents. Fuel oil prices as much as 76% higher an( natural gas prices rising by as much as 147% over baseline. The peril in rosy forecasts Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Science Committee which requested the study, said EIA's report showed the Administration was "sugarcoating harsh realities.'' The study, lmpacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and Economic Activity, examined si: The Clinton Administration publicly cases with different reductions in energy-related offered optimistic assumptions on what it will take to implement the Kyoto carbon emissions. In the case with the highest targe Protocol on global warming. In reality, carbon emissions are reduced by an average of 122 the cost to American families could be million metric tons a year relative to the projected baseline emissions between 2008 and 2012, which lo times the estimates made by the allows an increase of about 24 percent above 1990 Administration. levels. For the lowest target, emissions are reduced on average by 542 million metric tons relative to the For more on this. click here, baseline, or 7 percent below 1990 levels. Each case / t i l 6 ~/mIz? ZlMZI implicitly assumes different levels of international actions, offsets, or sinks, but these are not quantifiec Read the full text of the EIA news release. 7/6/99 4:05 PM - Economic Impact . * HOME http://www.globalcli~nate.org/econoinic. htm Economic Hardship force. These are some examples. intensive industries - chemicals, in developed countries, but not in the trading partners, would result in rse impact. The main effect would bl utput, employment and emissions countries to developing countries t are not required to participate. es can reduce U.S. emissions and 7/6/99 4 9 5 PM