Last week, Florida Gov. Rick Scott and House Speaker John Boehner made clear that the Republican Party has a new line
in response to questions about climate change: they don't feel "qualified" to know whether or not to believe scientists and the available evidence. "I'm not a scientist," Florida's GOP governor told reporters.
Apparently, they're not mathematicians, ether.
For example, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of the Senate Science Committee*, yesterday issued a statement
condemning the Obama administration's climate policy, vowing to "fight the president and his administration every step of the way to stop this unprecedented power grab." (The White House is acting under congressionally approved legislation, endorsed by the Supreme Court. How this could possibly be a "power grab" is unclear.)
Blunt's statement went on to get specific, pointing to evidence from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that Americans will pay "almost $290 billion more for electricity between 2014-2030" as a result of Obama's policy, adding, "Missouri consumers would pay on average $65.4 billion more between 2014-2030, on average $11 billion more per year."
's Steven Dennis took a closer look
and concluded that Blunt's math is "spectacularly wrong -- and even internally inconsistent."
Missouri is covered in part by three different regions, Blunt's spokeswoman, Amber Marchand, explained in an email. Blunt's office totaled up the costs for all three regions -- including parts of 25 states -- and divided by three to come up with Missouri's supposed costs of $65.4 billion. That's not how math works. The Blunt release then kept the $11 billion total yearly costs for all three regions -- remember, parts of 25 states -- and assigned them all to "Missouri consumers." ... It's simply wrong to take regional costs -- and certainly not the costs for three regions covering 25 states -- and ascribe them all to Missouri.
Of course, the Missouri Republican wasn't the only one struggling with math yesterday.
Speaker Boehner, also relying on the hilariously wrong U.S. Chamber of Commerce report, argued
, "The president's plan would indeed cause a surge in electricity bills -- costs stand to go up $17 billion every year. But it would also shut down plants and potentially put an average of 224,000 more people out of work every year."
As Glenn Kessler discovered
, none of this is true, either.
Note that the EPA rule said that the agency would seek a reduction of 30 percent. But on page 15 of the Chamber report, the Chamber says it assumed the rule would impose a 42 percent reduction.... Given the significant difference between the emission targets in the proposed rule and the assumptions in the Chamber report, Republicans should have avoided using the Chamber's numbers in the first place. We understand that they believe the negative impact will outweigh any positive impact but even by the Chamber's admission, these numbers do not apply at all to the EPA rule as written. Some might argue this was only an innocent mistake, but the EPA last week in a blog post on the Chamber's study noted that it would not require carbon capture technology for new natural gas plants.... That should have been a tip-off that some of the Chamber's assumptions were shaky — and that it would have been a good idea to double check what the rule actually said before firing off a statement.
: Blunt's office contacted me to note that the Senate committee that oversees science policy is formally known as the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. The Missouri Republican is a member