It's just another inconvenient truth: If Americans want any of the
government remedies that would supposedly save a planet allegedly
imperiled by global warming, it's going to cost them.

Just how much it will cost them has been a point of contention
lately. Many congressional Republicans, including members of the GOP
leadership, have claimed that the plan to limit carbon emissions
through cap and trade would cost the average household more
than $3,100 per year. According to an MIT study, between 2015 and 2050
cap and trade would annually raise an average of $366 billion in
revenues (divided by 117 million households equals $3,128 per
household, the Republicans reckon).

But on March 24, after interviewing one of the MIT professors who
conducted the study on which the GOP relied to produce its estimate,
the St. Petersburg Times fact-check unit, Politifact, declared the GOP figure of $3,100 per household was
a "Pants on Fire" falsehood. The GOP claim is "just wrong," MIT
professor John Reilly told Politifact. "It's wrong in so many ways
it's hard to begin."

According to Politifact, Reilly's report included an "estimate of
the net cost to individuals" that "would be $215.05 per
household. A far cry from $3,128."

Running with Politifact's report, bloggers at
Think Progress called the GOP's claim a "deliberate lie," a "myth", and an "outright lie". On April 1, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann
said that cap and trade's "average additional cost per family six
years from now would be 79 bucks, minus the amount foreign gas prices
would drop based on decreased demand, and minus lowered health care
costs, because of the cleaner atmosphere. Thirty-one bucks, 3,100
bucks, it's all the same to Congressman John the mathlete Boehner,
today's worst person in the world." On April 8, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow
said of the GOP's figure: "No. Pants on fire. The MIT guy says 'no.'
That's not what the study says. Not true. You can't say that."

From Politifact to Think Progress to MSNBC, Reilly's rebuttal of
the GOP cap-and-trade estimate made its way to the Democratic caucus
in the House of Representatives. During an April 2 floor debate, New
Jersey Democrat Rob Andrews criticized Republicans for citing a study that "the
author claims is just being blatantly misrepresented," and the staff of the House
energy committee chairman, Massachusetts Democrat Edward Markey, wrote that the figure was "more fuzzy math from
Republicans."