But don't expect any corrections to be forthcoming:
The nation’s first limits on carbon dioxide, announced Monday, would reduce carbon emissions 30 percent by 2030, compared with 2005. Much of the reduction would begin in 2020. The proposal would let states decide how to reach state-by-state targets.
House Speaker John Boehner predicted the plan would cost consumers an extra $17 billion a year and kill 224,000 jobs annually. “It’s a sucker punch for families everywhere paying more for just about everything in the president’s fragile economy,” Boehner said.
You'll see some variation of those numbers in nearly every article on this subject from local/regional NC news outlets. Problem is, Congressional Republicans like Boehner are citing a flawed Chamber of Commerce study to arrive at those numbers:
A selection of the statements appear above. Note that they all cite a Chamber of Commerce study that was released on May 28, allowing them to appear authoritative about the job losses, higher electric bills and so forth that they claimed will result from the administration’s action.
We have often warned readers to be wary of studies from groups with a vested interest in the outcome of a policy debate. But there’s an extra reason why lawmakers should have double-checked before pressing the “send” button on their emails.
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: “The 42% emissions reduction figure was chosen because, to date, it remains the only publicly announced Administration GHG [Greenhouse Gas protocol] reduction goal for 2030. The Administration has not said whether or how this goal might be modified.”
Oops. That’s a rather large gap between assumption and reality, as the Chamber of Commerce conceded to The Fact Checker. “It’s a big difference,” said Matt Letourneu, senior director for communications and media at the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, which produced the study. “We are going to have to see where the numbers fall.”
You can expect to see these incorrect figures show up everywhere from RWNJ Twit comments to testimony on the floor of our very own NCGA, but don't expect this meme to be challenged. Since the mistake originated outside of North Carolina, our media won't likely feel compelled to set the record straight.