This week, Congressmen Waxman and Markey released a new plan to repower America with clean energy and clean jobs. And, what did we hear from the climate deniers: the same old scare tactics they roll out every time a good idea is put in motion.

Representative Boehner and his colleagues falsely claimed an MIT study showed every American household paying $3,100 as a result of passing climate legislation. Turns out that when you go to the study in question the $3,100 figure refers to a rebate - not a tax - from revenues the government would collect by auctioning off a capped number of pollution permits. Yet Boehner and colleagues kept repeating the tale even after the author of the study told them it was wrong.

So, what are the economic facts here?

First, global warming pollution limits wouldn't go into effect until 2012. That means there will be no impact on energy prices in 2009, 2010, and 2011, contrary to what the obstructionists tell you.

Second, comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation would start creating millions of green jobs right away, as companies invest in energy efficiency upgrades and the renewable energy sources - like wind and solar - we need to power the clean energy revolution. Economists Larry Summers (see page 10), Sir Nicholas Stern, and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz - and many other respected scholars - know that comprehensive energy and climate policies offer us a real opportunity to get out of this recession, unlocking billions of private sector dollars, and breaking our addiction to foreign oil.

This is no surprise. Numerous academic and government studies analyzing climate legislation predicted gross domestic product (GDP) growth rates practically indistinguishable from those under no climate policy. Even industry studies forecast economic growth under climate policy, something they go to great lengths to hide in their reports.

Here's the most up-to-date forecast by the Energy Information Administration, released this week. We had to keep the lines very skinny so that it didn't look like there was only one:

This is a picture that shouts only two words: indistinguishable differences.

And it is a robust finding, unanimous amongst the studies. When do you ever get economists to agree like this? Practically never. But listening to the naysayers, you'd never know this.

What's more, these studies exclude the effects of many energy efficiency policies, including those from Obama's stimulus package and the Waxman-Markey bill that could dramatically save us money on our total utility bills, starting almost immediately. They also exclude the billions of dollars we will save on medical bills from reducing other air pollutants emitted along with carbon. Perhaps more subtle, the "reference" scenarios (i.e. no climate policy) assume no economic damages from failing to reduce carbon emissions.

There's a powerful implication related to GDP growth rarely discussed: the percentage of our income spent on home utility bills and gasoline is actually projected to decline, because GDP grows much faster than energy costs:

To be fair, the same pattern is projected to occur if no carbon limits are enacted. But the key point remains: we can have a healthy economy while we reduce global warming pollution.

Most importantly, what obstructionists won't talk about are the costs of inaction we'll pay if we do nothing to reduce the most destructive effects of climate change. If we take them at their word that they don't want to impose costs on our children and grandchildren, then what they are really saying is that they don't believe in the global warming science.

The draft language unveiled by Waxman and Markey is a great starting point. And it's clear that the opposition is running scared and making up stories. What else would you expect now that Chairmen Waxman and Markey are getting legislation moving, and they have the truth on their side? 

This post was updated April 5, 2009.