Experts disagree on benefits of global warming bill

FARGO, N.D. - Area business and environmental leaders disagree on whether the benefits of a federal proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be worth the costs.

The legislation could eliminate thousands of jobs in North Dakota and Minnesota and cut into household incomes, said Margo Thorning, the keynote speaker and one of five panelists at a Tuesday night forum that focused on the Lieberman-Warner bill.

"It's important to get this debate out," said Thorning, director of research for the American Council for Capital Formation. "There's time for us to do this analysis. We don't need to push to adopt something this year that may not be good down the road."

The proposal by Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, would require power plants and vehicles to reduce their greenhouse gases by 70 percent to prevent serious climate impact from global warming.

Thorning cited a study claiming the bill would lead to the loss of up to 9,085 North Dakota jobs and up to 74,569 Minnesota jobs by 2030. That would be due to high energy prices, costs for complying with emissions cuts and greater competition from overseas manufacturers, she said.

"The U.S. economy will be challenged if the assumptions in this survey are reasonably on point," Thorning said.
Thorning's study does not take into account technological advances and incentives in the bill meant to offset economic impacts, said Carmen Miller, the North Dakota representative of the Pew environment group.

"Those assumptions are based on a model that underestimates future energy development. Other interpretations show a very different picture," Miller said. "It's a complicated bill. It's over 300 pages and about the best cure for insomnia that I've seen in some time.

"You have to consider it in its entirety. Standing alone, a lot of these provisions will not work," she said.

John Harju, researcher at the University of North Dakota's Energy and Environmental Research Center, agreed that innovation could reduce the price of the global warming proposal.

"I'm bullish on technology," Harju said. "I think technology is a vehicle that over the course of time ... I think these costs become ludicrous."

Dave Berg, president and CEO of American Crystal Sugar Co., said he fears that the requirements in the bill will drive buyers "to a place where sugar is produced by following the black smoke" in other countries.

"I do take this seriously," Berg said. "But the first point is that we need to understand the costs and the benefits."
Miller was the only person among the five panelists who said she would vote in favor of the current bill.

"Obviously, it's very important to talk about economic costs," Miller said. "But on the flip side, what are the costs of doing nothing? Doing nothing may be the most expensive climate change policy this country could have."

Bill Blazar, a spokesman for the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, said some version of the bill is inevitable. People should understand the consequences, he said.

"I'm not saying we shouldn't try to solve the problem," Blazer said. "We should try to find policies to reduce the emissions while sustaining economic growth and keeping jobs in our community."

The Associated Press
March 19, 2008

back