Impact of the Waxman-Markey Climate Change Legislation on the States

Report Environment

Impact of the Waxman-Markey Climate Change Legislation on the States

August 19, 2009 18 min read

Authors: David Kreutzer, Nicolas Loris, Ben Lieberman, Karen Campbell and William Beach

On June 26, the House of Representatives narrowly passed climate change legislation designed by Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA). The 1,427-page bill would restrict greenhouse gas emissions from industry, mainly carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas.

If passed by the Senate, the bill would burden families with thousands of dollars per year in direct and indirect energy costs. According to a new study produced by Heritage's Center for Data Analysis (CDA), forecasts severe consequences-including crushing energy costs, millions of jobs lost and falling household income-if Congress enacts the so-called Waxman-Markey bill.

Inevitably the bill will affect each state differently. Some states are more energy-intensive than others and some rely a great deal on manufacturing to fuel its economy. Regardless, the costs in every state are significant. Increases in electricity and gasoline are a dreadful site for any American. Moreover, the projected losses in jobs and Gross State Product (GSP) illustrate how each state's economy will be operating well under its potential directly because of the Waxman-Markey bill. What follows are 50 state-by-state breakouts of the impact the bill would have on jobs and the economy.

Individual
State Reports
(webpage)

2-page Report(PDF)

Highlights Table (JPEG)

Economic Indicators (JPEG)

Utility Costs (JPEG)

Alabama Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Alaska Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Arizona Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Arkansas Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
California Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Colorado Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Connecticut Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Delaware Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
District of Columbia Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Florida Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Georgia Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Hawaii Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Idaho Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Illinois Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Indiana Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Iowa Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Kansas Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Kentucky Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Louisiana Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Maine Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Maryland Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Massachusetts Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Michigan Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Minnesota Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Mississippi Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Missouri Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Montana Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Nebraska Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Nevada Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
New Hampshire Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
New Jersey Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
New Mexico Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
New York Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
North Carolina Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
North Dakota Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Ohio Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Oklahoma Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Oregon Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Pennsylvania Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Rhode Island Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
South Carolina Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
South Dakota Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Tennessee Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Texas Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Utah Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Vermont Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Virginia Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Washington Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
West Virginia Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Wisconsin Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2
Wyoming Report Table Chart 1 Chart 2

 

 

 

Authors

David Kreutzer
David Kreutzer

Former Senior Research Fellow, Labor Markets and Trade

Nicolas Loris
Nicolas Loris

Former Deputy Director, Thomas A. Roe Institute

Ben Lieberman
Ben Lieberman

Former Senior Policy Analyst, Energy and Environment Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies

Karen Campbell
Karen Campbell

Director

William Beach

Senior Associate Fellow