Report: Senate passage of climate bill would save homeowners money

This type of analysis uses faulty assumptions and often leaves out the benefits conferred to us when we consume energy, such as cooking food, heating our house or driving to the beach for the day. If you took this type analysis to its logical conclusion then we would all save even more money if we stopped consuming energy altogether, and thus we would be better off. Moreover, the cost/benefit ratio of making our house more energy efficient has changed, especially for those who heat with natural gas, since energy prices have come down. What about the opportunity cost of using those resources on other spending? Oh, and by the way, those government incentives are not free either! The incentives will crowd out other spending like for education and public safety. Once a full analysis is considered, “green” economics is not so green after all$$.

How will we save money? Why don't you tell us that?

This is contradictory to what I've read about the bill. Even the EPA says that the CO2 reduction is insignificicant. And that the cost to consumers - for all kinds of goods as well as home utility bills - will increase not decrease. Some say the bill would cost consumers hundreds per year - others thousands per year....

as Joe Wilson said: "YOU LIE!"

this bill will cost businesses a lot, and those costs will be passed on to the consumers. everyone knows that. this piece is insulting to even those of average intelligence, as is most liberal tripe.

LOL...

Cap and Trade will charge uitility companies huge penalties for emmitting carbon. These companies in turn will pass this cost onto the consumer via higher monthly utility bills. They will pass it on to their commercial clients as well who require electric, gas, etc to produce goods and services.

These businesses will then pass this extra cost onto the consumer at the retail end. Again.

The consumer gets hit twice. With higher energy bills. And higher prices for goods and services. Period.

Green is the new Red. It's a trojan horse for communism.

See Van Jones - the Green Jobs Czar, an admitted communist.

This is a joke. Does the Boston Globe hire people with degrees in journalism? Or has journalism become such a joke that "reporters" just regurgitate what they are told by special interest groups they agree with? Has anyone over there at the Globe thought to do a little fact-checking or investigative reporting? I guess I am expecting too much.

To think that cap and trade is not going to cost American households money is just ridiculous. The cost of gasoline, home heating oil, and electricity are going to go through the roof.

Wait a year or two. If the economy comes back at all in that time energy is going to skyrocket because of lack of supply and constrictions like cap and trade. $1240 a barrell for oil will be cheap.

Of course it will cost more... ever hear of carbon credits? This will cost us thousands more in 7 years... go Goldman sucks!!!

First of, Green energy is not communism. Please stop. You people are insane. Just because the radio talk show hosts tell you that we should continue to send our dollars to hostile regimes in the Middle East, Russia, and the Sudan for oil and gas, doesn't make it a good idea. Having American workers build and maintain renewable sources of energy is a good idea. Stop spreading your ignorance like a disease. Once you build the right infrastructure, prices will come down, the energy revenues will stay in the U.S. and most of out hostile regimes will be bankrupt.
Your ignorance is shameful.

So...maybe it is going to be a little harder when you carry a conscience around. What these negative commentators do not add is what THEIR alternative plan is...or do they believe climate change is a great liberal conspiracy, along with raising your taxes and brainwashing your children? If anything requires an ounce of sacrifice, then conservatives - or the status quo - are against it. If the world is in danger in any way, they want absolute proof before they spend any money - except if it is for weapons and destruction. That's right - let's elect what's his name - Joe Blowhard - he knows how to be sitting pretty and pugnacious - and then cry that he's so sorry.

So we better get cracking with alternative energy.

Very bizarre analysis. I don't see how this could possibly save money for anyone in the largest greenhouse producing gas nation. It's counterintuitive.

If anything we would have to either increase the cost of energy, or decrease our energy use. "Green jobs" are a myth at this point in time. Either they are highly polluting or non-existant.

The point is that we can save a lot through energy efficiency. That doesn't mean consuming less, it means doing the same thing but using less energy to do it. Efficiency gains would be from standards on appliances, electronics, and the like, as well as in energy transmission (e.g. power lines, transformers, etc).

Of course green jobs are a myth at this point, that's why we need to create them. And the rest just isn't even worth responding to.

I'm concerned about what will happen should (or rather, when) the "requirement" that utilities reduce energy usage by 10% doesn't happen. Does anyone know? Wishful thinking doesn't make it so...congress would be better off sticking its collective head in the sand.

1,454 million cars a year, you say? Is that even a number? Kind of like Pelosi claiming 500 million American jobs were being lost every month. Liberals just make up stats and numbers and expect people to believe it.

Any climate change legislation enacted by the Obama Regime will cost each American $0.001 kazillion dollars an hour. Am a speaking your language now?

All this article is saying is that by winterizing homes or insulating them correctly, houses will use less natural gas or oil to heat them, or less electricity to cool them. Extrapolated over all the homes in the United States, this article is reporting that this is similar to removing 1.5 million cars off the road. Whether or not this is true, is debatable. What is not, is that homes are not insulated properly. When they are, people will start to lower their energy bills by paying for less fuel to heat or cool their homes by being able to keep in their spaces for longer periods of time. And consumers, will save money regardless of the low cost of natural gas, the payback for the upgrades will just take longer.

This article's picture is showing a volunteer group in Boston winterizing homes for free. So the upfront cost is nothing, and the home owner reaps all of the benefits. Please attend a barnraising if you would like to learn more on how to insulate your home, save money, help the environment, and develop a conscience.

It is not rocket science or myths, insulating homes is simply slowing down the transfer of heat.

Don't preach to me about developing a conscious, "Clarity". Nothing is for free. That is the point. Our hard earned tax dollars pay for such programs and I can think of a thousand better ways of using my tax money, starting with prosecuting groups like ACRON. They are the ones without conscious.

Ok, I'm going to step into this one.....I'm all for the environment and Gods creatures, but I'm not for letting it being used to promote socialism! I guess I would have more faith in the sincerity of this Administration and celebrities global warming concern if they led by example. People who are concerned about their carbon footprint do not jump in their jets at the drop of a hat, to be picked up by their limos! How much fuel was used to go to the Olympic games meeting? Not for just the Airforce One but several other jets as well, then add the limos. We get told we should carpool, but the President and his wife couldnt even share a plane going to the same place! When a President dictates what you will be allowed to do, and takes the do as I say not as I do attitude...it's Socialism!