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

His contrails will go on: DiCaprio takes private jet from France to NYC to accept environmental award (Open thread)

May 22, 2016 10:06 AM by Doug Powers

kerrydicaprio

Hypocrite parade: Powered by dreams and jet fuel

Fear factor: Forum at MIT examines if a certain phobia is worsening global warming

May 10, 2016 10:36 AM by Doug Powers

kerryclimate

Is it hot in here or is this crazy?

John Kerry should tell the White House about his ‘borderless world’ prediction

May 8, 2016 11:08 PM by Doug Powers

kerryfootball

Whatever

Tale of 2 tribes: “Climate refugees” vs. EPA victims

May 4, 2016 07:01 AM by Michelle Malkin

Hillary Clinton sorry if any coal workers believed what she said about putting them out of business

May 3, 2016 12:44 PM by Doug Powers

hillarycoal

“Clarification,” Clinton-style!


Categories: Enviro-nitwits, Feature Story, Hillary Clinton, 2016 Campaign

Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook