Word: costs
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...last year's The Dark Knight. Add the $200 million or so that this Armageddon for machines picked up in foreign theaters over the same stretch, and you have a $400 million world domination. (We'll add just one more $200 million figure: that's what this T2 cost to produce.) (See pictures of cinema's most memorable robots...
...industry and the National Association of Manufacturers, among others - say cap and trade amounts to a massive tax on U.S. energy, which mostly still comes from carbon-intensive fossil fuels like coal. That's partially true - the whole point behind cap and trade is to raise the cost of emitting carbon and drive investment in energy efficiency and renewable power. "No matter how you doctor it or tailor it, it is a tax," said Representative Joe Pitts, a Pennsylvania Republican...
...critics have vastly overstated the likely cost. In fact, they're all but lying. During the House debate, Republican whip Eric Cantor, using numbers from an American Petroleum Institute study, said that the bill would eventually cost more than $3,000 per family per year - but those numbers assume that billions of tons worth of inexpensive carbon offsets won't be available under the bill, which would significantly inflate the overall cost. That's not going to happen. A more reliable study from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecast that the bill would cost the average U.S. household...
True, no economic forecast of 15 years into the future is ironclad, but there are enough safety valves and offsets in Waxman-Markey to ensure the cost will be manageable. But that's the problem. To keep conservative Democrats on board - especially those in the coal-heavy Midwest and Southeast - Waxman and Markey allowed the bill to be watered down considerably, loosening the overall carbon cap and scaling back the renewable-energy standard. When the powerful farm lobby balked at the bill, it was changed to allow farmers to sell offsets from agriculture, such as no-till farming, which leaves...
...potential cost to the consumer has dogged the bill for months. Republicans, citing an MIT study, say the measure could cost households as much as $3,100 a year, a number disputed by factcheck.org. The group interviewed one of the authors of that study, who said the true impact would be more like $800 a year. The Congressional Budget Office, giving a boost to Democrats, last week said the program would cost the average family $175 in 2020. Whatever the expense, Republicans are labeling the bill as a carbon tax that - on top of the stimulus and the push...