As Congress returns to Washington, D.C. after their summer recess next week, one of the many contentious issues on the table will be climate change legislation.

The legislation mandates that government set acceptable limits for carbon dioxide emitting industries, and then require them to buy permits. A fixed number of permits would be auctioned each year and the permits would be tradable, so firms that found ways to emit less than they were permitted for could sell unused permits to firms who couldn't meet the federal limits.

The Waxman-Markey legislation, or the "American Clean Energy and Security Act," passed the House in June by a narrow margin of 219-212 after the Democratic House Leadership created enough loopholes and giveaways to attract enough votes for passage.

The bill has caused an uproar among oil & gas refiners because it makes them accountable for nearly half of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions while receiving only about 2.25 percent of total emissions allowances. The electricity sector, a major source of greenhouse-gas pollutants, obtained a much larger share of the allowances.

Meanwhile, yesterday in downtown Anchorage over 200 Alaskans joined together in an energy rally to protest the legislation, fearing the loss of jobs and economic opportunities in a state that derives ninety cents out of every dollar it spends from the oil and gas industry.

In response to the rally, a proponent of the legislation told an Anchorage Daily News reporter that he heard a lot of exaggeration.

Pat Lavin, an attorney for the National Wildlife Federation in Anchorage, told the media that the average household will pay "a postage stamp per day" for the legislation. Lavin was quoting Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., one of the bill's sponsors.

Average household?

Obviously Lavin ignores the fact that Alaska doesn't consist of average households.

In fact, Alaskans pay on average the highest cost for energy in the United States.

However, Lavin, like a number of the existing climate change legislation supporters, have become fond of using the "postage stamp a day" soundbite to try and assuage fears about the economic impacts of the legislation.

Some are more honest than others.

In a column published last week in a New Jersey newspaper, Doug O'Malley, the field director of Environment New Jersey, outlined the real back story behind the "postage stamp a day" sales pitch.

"The cost of cap-and-trade will certainly be higher in states, unlike New Jersey, that are solely dependent on fossil fuels. However, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of the program over the next decade will total a little more than a postage stamp a day for averageAmerican households. And that's without the benefits of energy efficiency programs, which would likely lower consumer costs to a negligible level."

At least O'Malley, who lives three thousand miles away, is honest about the true impacts on states like Alaska that pay the bills by exploring and developing fossil fuels.

But there's more.

Notice how proponents argue the cost will be minimal over the "next decade."

That's for two reasons.

One, the CBO failed to account for any economic loss in its calculations. From right-leaning think tanks like the Heritage Foundation to left-leaning think tanks like the Brookings Institute all predict this legislation will cost millions of jobs.

"The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap. The reduction in GDP would also include indirect general equilibrium effects, such as changes in the labor supply resulting from reductions in real wages and potential reductions in the productivity of capital and labor." (From the Congressional Budget Office, "The Estimated Costs to Households from H.R. 2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.")

Two, the most onerous and costly provisions of the legislation don't kick in until 2020, which gives proponents the ability to soft sell costs for the first decade. After that . . . costs will increase dramatically and with arguable benefits.