Reply #2: Listening - though I missed some because of a call

[karynnj]

Dr Green (AEI) is as bad as could have been guessed. He claims he is an environmentalist by training, but that he picked up economics! Everything he has said on economics is pure right wing - again claiming that government can't create jobs.

Dr Thorning (AAF) says that most government models use macro-economics. The imput-output models don't take gas prices into consideration and are not dynamic. Their model shows a 1.7 to 2.0 decrease in GDP.

Recommend - drilling, nuclear, and getting clean coal. She makes one really bad assumption "If the US goes it alone, there will be little gain." She then concluded that the cost (higher than other studies) outweigh the benefits (assumed away).

Tom (PG&E) - (the only one on our side) - She is the workforce strategy director and she makes a great case for there being a large number of jobs.

Baucus asked Thorning about the many projections and comparing them to CBO and EPA, hers is much higher than the others. (Duh - look at her assumptions!) AND that is exactly what Baucus did - ask her about her assumptions. (answer - they were attached. She built in "realistic" assumptions on when new technology comes in place. She spoke of length of time to get nuclear up and clean coal. She thinks EPA was unrealistic.) Baucus says her projection is an outlier. Why? She said that they might say she constrained renewables too much.

Roberts (because he has an appointment) - He misuses work Micro - saying she had a macro model, but he'll speak of micro - Kansas. He says that cap and trade will cause Kansas to lose jobs. He spoke to people in Kansas. They rank high in oil and gas production and those industries invest in Kansas. He lists small towns with hard working people in oil refinery. He doesn't know what a green job is because it is not in the dictionary. He doesn't think we should favor green jobs. Claims bill will NOT lead to a cleaner environment. Thorning backed him up.