California Rep. Henry Waxman, chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, has a New Year’s resolution. For the good of the economy, let’s all hope he can’t keep it. AP reports,

The chairman of a key House committee said Thursday he will move “quickly and decisively” to push legislation curbing greenhouse gases with a goal of passing climate legislation out of his committee before Memorial Day.”

And straight from the horse’s mouth:

Our environment and our economy depend on congressional action to confront the threat of climate change and secure our energy independence.”

Let’s work out a quick exercise. Senators Lieberman and Warner introduced a global warming bill last summer and it quickly died on the Senate floor. Their goal was to enact legislation that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions 70 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. Our Center for Data Analysis ran the numbers of what such a commitment to reduce Co2 would cost our economy and found:

• Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are at least $1.7 trillion and could reach $4.8 tril­lion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).
• Single-year GDP losses hit at least $155 billion and realistically could exceed $500 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).
• Annual job losses exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could approach 1,000,000.
• The annual cost of emission permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2020 and could exceed $300 billion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).
• The average household will pay $467 more each year for its natural gas and electricity (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars). That means that the average household will spend an additional $8,870 to purchase household energy over the period 2012 through 2030.

Keep in mind: This analysis did not extend beyond 2030 and the mandated greenhouse gas reductions continue to become more severe and must be 70 percent below the 2005 level by 2050.

I’m wondering, what is so great about Waxman’s proposal that he can save the environment and our economy at the same time? Well, he hasn’t actually proposed anything, but he did invite a group of 14 corporate executives and environmental leaders who are testifying before the panel, who are part of

a 31-member coalition that is calling for an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.”

What’s worse:

Obama has called for an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050 from 1990 levels, meaning greater reductions would have to be made.”

So the plan is to enact legislation that would be even more stringent than the failed Lieberman-Warner bill, a bill that would have severely crippled our economy?

Am I missing something?