For each and every report, there is an opposing report. Yesterday, Peter G. cited an issue brief published by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which contended that an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plan to curtail CO2 emissions would create 5,600 jobs in the Old Dominion and shave $1 billion off Virginians’ electric bills.
Now comes a report issued by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, “The Costs of New EPA Rules to Virginia.” The institute hired the Beacon Hill Institute to gauge the impact on Virginia’s economy. Concludes TJI Chairman Michael Thompson:
Virginia will need to reduce its CO2 levels by 38% from 2012 levels and the costs to our state’s industries will be $1.7 billion by 2030. Those costs will be paid for by our citizens in higher prices. Our electric bills will increase by 25% and we will lose over 38,000 jobs that would not be lost if these EPA regulations were not implemented here in Virginia.
My point here is not to side with one report over another. Both NRDC and the Thomas Jefferson Institute probably had reasonable grounds for reaching the conclusions they did. The trick is to dig into the assumptions and methodologies that each side is making to see if they stand up to scrutiny.
I’m working on an in-depth analysis that, hopefully, will lay bare the logic of the opposing sides. Not that it will change anyone’s minds. People believe whom they want to believe, and as long as someone provides them a fig leaf of a justification, they will continue believing whom they want to believe.
— JAB
