Did You Know...

   

Bogus cap-and-trade statistic of the day

Share
By Michelle Malkin  •  June 23, 2009 02:51 PM

Conn Carroll does the math:

Most problematic is their complete omission of economic damage from restricting energy use. Footnote three on page four reads, “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).” That’s a pretty big chunk of change to ignore. In The Heritage Foundation’s analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, the GDP hit in 2020 was $161 billion (2009 dollars). For a family of four, that is $1,870 that they ignore.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Posted in: Enviro-nitwits

Peer-reviewed study: Obama’s mixed messages contributing to climate change, mass confusion

September 1, 2015 10:19 AM by Doug Powers

obamaclosing

Spending ensues, no matter what (and that’s the important thing)

What is Obama’s top population control freak hiding?

August 26, 2015 08:59 AM by Michelle Malkin

Obama torches 20,000 gallons of gas to warn that ‘fossil fuel interests’ are conspiring against ‘clean energy’

August 24, 2015 09:10 PM by Doug Powers

solyndra-obama-3-1

Because it worked so well the first time

Head of EPA: Obama’s Clean Power Plan will hit low-income minorities hardest, but they’ll get ‘incredible savings’ by 2030

August 20, 2015 08:58 AM by Doug Powers

epa

They’re from the bloated bureaucracy and they’re here to help you save money


Categories: Enviro-nitwits, Feature Story

Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook