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

New Dem slogan a BIG hit with people who make money testing slogans (open thread)

July 23, 2017 08:21 AM by Doug Powers

Prepping for 2018’s delicate operation

Al Gore undaunted by inconvenient truth about Antarctic iceberg

July 14, 2017 02:05 PM by Doug Powers

Self-contained buzzkills

Science! More proof that climate change alarmists have ALL the bases covered

July 11, 2017 09:23 AM by Doug Powers

This mixed message is Gore-approved


Categories: Enviro-nitwits, global warming

Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook