Utahns would be economically clobbered by climate legislation making its way through Congress, according to a report released Thursday by U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch and Utah Gov. Gary Herbert.

But many of the nearly 100 people who showed up for a forum hosted by the two Republicans seemed less interested in the details of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill than they were about what they can do to ensure its defeat.

"Is this meeting a call for us to prepare for disaster?" asked Provo resident Cameron Sevy, who called the legislation "scary." "Or is this meeting going to inform us what we can do as citizens to help avert this disaster?"

The senator and the governor were not on hand to hear rallying cries like Sevy's. They left right after introducing their report and urging a "respectful and civil" discussion of the proposed legislation.

"Energy intensive industries that cannot reduce CO2 emissions would have to purchase allowances in order to remain in business," Hatch told the group before leaving, "and the impact of this new tax on carbon-based energy use would touch all goods and services produced in Utah."

"Cost and benefit ought to be analyzed together," said Herbert in opening remarks. "We hear a lot about the benefit side. We want to hear a little bit more about the cost side."

The Waxman-Markey bill passed the House of Representatives in June. All three of Utah's three House members voted "no."

With a key Senate panel expected to take up cap-and-trade legislation in the weeks ahead, the fight against it is being stepped up by groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute, which have helped organize rallies nationwide in recent weeks.

"Cap and Trade: The Cost to Utah" was developed, Hatch and Herbert said, by leaders in Utah's electric, agriculture and oil industries and supplemented by national analyses from the Heritage Foundation, government agencies and others. The 13-page summary details increased costs to consumers for electricity, gas and food, as well as the loss of jobs, farm profits and the state's overall economic output.

In contrast to government estimates of the cost to consumers of between $140 to $175 per family per year, Heritage projected each family would see impacts of up to $19,000 annually.

The report, also citing Heritage Foundation projections, estimated the hit to Utah's Gross State Product as $4 billion annually in 2035 and lost jobs would be between 14,875 and 23,962 annually.

Meanwhile, the report summed up the effect on reducing global temperature as being "immeasurably small."

At least a few who attended asked about costs of ignoring climate change and the savings families can expect from conservation and technology. But their inquiries were not welcomed.

Booing prevented the Rev. Diana Johnson of Utah Interfaith Power and Light from finishing her point about the importance of discussing indirect costs such as air pollution, asthma, tourism lost to fouled vistas and the devastation of Hurricane Katrina -- that some associate with climate pollution as part of the cap-and-trade debate.

In contrast, several disputed the need for climate legislation since the science supporting global warming is flimsy, they said.

"Why are they relying on bad science and a few computer models," asked Bliss Tew, a regional field director for the John Birch Society, "to railroad us and stampede us into this panic-button bill to start an energy famine in America?"

"What can we do," asked Sue Richardson of Sandy, "if we are against this bill in this group? what can we do to get other senators nationwide to get other senators that may be on the edge to reconsider?"

J.J. Brown, a Hatch aide who moderated Thursday's discussion, said that, like pending health-care legislation, people speaking out can make a difference in the bill's chances in Washington.

fahys@sltrib.com