Statistics Never Lie - but Liars Use Statistics

If you’ve visited your local Valero gas station lately, you might have noticed a little political theater right there at the pumps. Not content with spending their money on K Street lobbyists in hopes of influencing the government in their favor, the Texas-based oil and gas company has instituted a “grass-roots” campaign in hopes of quashing climate legislation. Like most, although not all, other fossil-fuel companies, Valero’s management (led by CEO William R. Klesse) is staunchly – almost virulently – opposed to climate legislation. This may in part reflect the extreme rightward political leanings of former Oklahoma congressman Don Nickles, a board member, but is a position that is in no way unusual at the top of the industry. Rank-and-file employees, especially scientists (of which there are few on boards of directors) are less hard-line, by the way.

All that means, however, that Valero has begun displaying posters at company stations (many former Diamond Shamrock sites) flatly stating that the Waxman-Markey climate legislation passed by the House of Representatives this past summer is, in the words of Klesse, “a hidden tax.” Klesse further claims that “more than a million high-paying jobs will disappear from our already weakened economy, with no measurable improvement in global climate change.” Perhaps Klesse is concerned that one of them will be his, for which he was compensated to the tune of $10.5 million in 2008 (per Forbes). Valero’s poster, attributed to an organization called Voices for Energy (apparently another name for “Valero”) repeats Klesse’s statements, and states flatly that the Waxman-Markey bill will raise the price of a gallon of gasoline by seventy-seven cents - or more!!! democracydata.com, the domain hosting Voices for Energy, is a Virginia-based political consulting organization that terms itself specialists “in database management and zip to district matching supporting virtually any sort of grassroots lobbying activity.” Grassroots my ass: it’s just astroturf.

So anyway, let’s get to the claim of “77 cents per gallon.”

The impression left by the wild-eyed Uncle Sam is that, if Waxman-Markey passes, your gasoline will cost at least 77 cents more per gallon the next day. However, the 77-cent estimate comes from a compilation of studies performed by the American Petroleum Institute (API), an industry trade association and advocacy group, and represents their estimate of the increase ten years out in 2019 (ignoring inflation, if any). API didn’t crunch the numbers themselves, however; they used numbers from a study published by EIA, the Energy Information Administration (the statistical agency of the U. S. Department of Energy, nominally independent). To sum up that study: EIA estimates that if energy markets were to continue unchanged, the average price of a gallon of gasoline in 2019 would be $3.62/gallon. With Waxman-Markey in place (unchanged from its current form), EIA estimates a best-case scenario of $3.74/gallon and a worst-case scenario of $4.29/gallon – the 65-cent difference is due at least in part to variable estimates of the effectiveness of carbon offsets in reducing costs. The API’s, and Valero’s, 77-cent “estimate” is that worst-case scenario, in which no refiner or producer reduces costs by a single penny – perhaps out of distaste for the practice of using carbon offsets…

The EIA figures are used by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO, the non-partisan agency that provides economic data to the legislature), which has estimated that the use of all available carbon offsets would cut the cost of the cap-and-trade legislation by 70%, or about 54 cents of that worst-case scenario. CBO, by the way, calls the API figures “extreme” and protests that the use of the EIA’s 77-cent figure misrepresents the non-partisan group’s calculations.

Undeterred by the protests of non-partisan statistical organizations, however, the API not only continues to quote that 77-cent figure, but has also allied itself with that paragon of non-partisanship, the Heritage Foundation, to figure out on a state-by-state basis how much the cap-and-trade will “cost” people.


Both EIA and CBO have stated that the effects of using carbon offsets, details of which are still vague, on the ultimate costs can't be reliably calculated - which is part of the reason for the sixty-five cent spread in their estimates. For the API to use only the estimate that best supports their cause is, however, to be expected. It's akin to a Celtics fan shouting that The Sporting News says his team will will 80 games this year when the article says "between 60 and 80." And, of course, the Nets fans will sneer that the News said the Celtics would only win 60...

As always, the best policy is to take the Heritage Foundation’s numbers, add them to Ralph Nader’s, and divide by two… To recap: statistics never lie, but liars use statistics - only they don't use all of them. The API is cherry-picking...