Jun 1, 2022 · 19m · green-blueprint
The obscure federal agency hindering climate legislation
Dr. Mark Paul · 9m spoken Stephen Lacey · 6m spoken Bret Baier · 38s spoken Joe Manchin · 22s spoken
0:00 / 0:00
gold bands on the timeline = statements, start to end. Hover to read, click to jump. CC turns on captions
Host Stephen Lacey and economist Dr. Mark Paul examine how the Congressional Budget Office's outdated macroeconomic modeling ignores the catastrophic financial costs of climate change, effectively acting as an institutional barrier to federal climate legislation. They analyze the political and economic fallout of these flawed scorekeeping methods and explore legislative and administrative pathways to modernize the agency's scoring rules.
How this conversation actually went
Every chapter scored 0–10 on four independent dynamics. Hover any point for the reasoning behind the score. How this is scored →
The hosts as informed peer 4.8 Guest teaching 3.8 Guest disagreement 1.5 The hosts pushing back 1.0
speaking balance: gold is the hosts, purple is the guest (3 minute bins)
Sharpest disagreement ▶ 8:57 Rejecting the premise of CBO model utility
Dr. Paul strongly attacks CBO's methodology, citing statistician George Box to argue that CBO modeling is not merely inaccurate, but actively detrimental to public policy.
Hardest push from the hosts ▶ 15:14 Challenging the guest's referee blame framingLacey directly challenges Dr. Paul's criticism of the CBO by suggesting the agency is merely following rules set by Congress and that lawmakers, not the referee, are responsible.
Biggest teaching moment ▶ 12:07 Exposing arbitrary CBO assumptions on public investmentDr. Paul breaks down CBO's flawed internal assumption that public investment yields half the productivity of private investment, explaining how it distorts clean energy economics.
The host holds their own ▶ 5:09 Lacey presents extensive economic data on climate riskLacey demonstrates command of the subject by citing specific projections from Deloitte and insurance giants showing tens of trillions in economic damage from climate inaction.
the scores for every segment, with the reasoning behind each
| Chapter | Topic | The hosts as informed peer | Guest teaching | Guest disagreement | The hosts pushing back | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Introducing the Congressional Budget Office and Scoring Mandate | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Lacey introduces the show's narrative structure and context around the CBO, incorporating archival audio. Dr. Paul outlines the CBO's core role in scoring legislative budget and GDP impacts in a collaborative dynamic. | |
| How CBO Scoring Provided Political Cover on Build Back Better | 6 | 3 | 2 | 0 | Lacey brings extensive data to bear, citing major economic analyses from Deloitte and global insurers showing trillion-dollar macroeconomic risks from climate inaction. Dr. Paul notes how CBO scoring provided political cover to conservative lawmakers like Joe Manchin. | |
| The Carbon Copy Show Introduction and Framing Thesis | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Lacey and Dr. Paul trade historical context regarding the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act created to curtail Nixon's impoundment of funds. Both hosts align on the historical foundations of CBO neutrality. | |
| Flawed Macroeconomic Modeling and Failure to Calculate Climate Risks | 5 | 6 | 2 | 0 | Lacey asks an informed question about how the Social Cost of Carbon intersects with CBO budget scores. Dr. Paul educates Lacey by distinguishing regulatory analysis from legislative scoring and exposing CBO's arbitrary baseline assumption that public investment is half as productive as private investment. | |
| Mid-Show Break: Questioning Congressional Inaction on CBO Reform | 6 | 4 | 2 | 6 | Lacey pushes back by offering a devil's advocate defense of the CBO, suggesting that lawmakers should blame the rules rather than the referee. Dr. Paul pushes back on this framing, arguing CBO leadership possesses internal agency discretion it refuses to exercise. | |
| Prioritizing CBO Reform to Reflect Climate Economic Realities | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | Lacey asks Dr. Paul to prioritize CBO reform among broader climate policy initiatives. Dr. Paul ranks it at the top, citing the massive GDP disruption of extreme weather events that CBO modeling currently omits. |
Statements from this episode (17)
The CBO lacks a method to calculate economic costs of climate change
“Is that it has no way of calculating the cost of climate change to the economy.”
Global insurer projects climate change could slash $23 trillion by 2050
“For example, a projection from one of the world's largest insurers showed that climate change could slash 23 trillion from the global economy by twenty-fifty.”
Deloitte analysis says climate inaction could cost US $14.5 trillion
“Or an analysis from Deloitte showing climate inaction could cost the US economy 14.5 trillion in the next five decades.”
Deloitte finds rapid decarbonization would add $3 trillion to US GDP
“That Deloitte study also showed that rapidly decarbonizing the economy would add three trillion dollars to America's GDP over that time frame, which is in line with what every major organization studying the economic impact of this issue finds.”
Paul argues CBO gives ammunition to climate deniers without good reason
“The only hurdle we're facing today is a purely political one, and CBO, for no good reason, is giving additional ammunition to climate deniers left and right.”
Major US social programs passed before the CBO existed in 1974
“Basically every major piece of social legislation, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, minimum wage laws, they were passed without the CBO.”
Paul claims the CBO is anything but a fair and honest broker
“Both teams agree that they are, you know, a fair and honest kind of broker in the policy situation. But in fact, CBO is anything but.”
Trump-era report estimated unabated climate change costs 10% of GDP annually
“A report that came out under the Trump administration, the National Climate Assessment Four, estimated that unabated climate change would lead to damages in the realm of 10% of GDP every year into perpetuity.”
Paul says NCA4 estimates underestimate damages in a three-degree warmed world
“And to be frank, I think that that is actually a underestimate of what things would look like in a three plus degree warmed world precisely because a habitable planet underpins absolutely everything in our lives.”
CBO completely ignores the social cost of carbon in legislative budgetary scoring
“The social cost of carbon doesn't factor into the CBO analysis. The social cost of carbon is utilized for regulatory analysis, not for legislative budgetary analysis as done by the CBO. So they're essentially used in two different branches of government, but a…”
CBO models arbitrarily assume public investment is half as productive as private
“The CBO is just simply assumes, pulls it out of a hat, that public investment is half as productive as private investment.”
Empirical evidence shows public investment often yields higher returns than private
“And here again, you know, the empirical evidence shows that that's just completely false. That is not at all how the economy works, and in the real world, often public investment has higher rates of return than private investment.”
Sanders introduced a 2014 bill requiring CBO carbon scores on all legislation
“In fact, back in 2014, Senator Sanders introduced the Carbon Pollution Transparency Act which would have required CBO to calculate a carbon score for any and all legislation introduced.”
Paul calls CBO modeling a fundamental roadblock to US climate legislation
“I do think it is a fundamental roadblock to the United States passing any climate legislation.”
CBO can update its climate models without waiting for a congressional mandate
“The CBO doesn't need Congress's mandate to change their model here. In fact, they could do it without Congress. Congress could force them to, but there's no reason that the CBO needs to wait.”