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
~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's Email List:
Posted in: Enviro-nitwits

Berkeley City Council votes to put ‘climate change’ warning labels on gas pumps

November 19, 2014 09:08 PM by Doug Powers

algorethumbs

Wait, there are still gas stations in Berkeley?

White House: Do something about ‘climate change’ or prepare for a fiery death — or worse

November 18, 2014 07:24 PM by Doug Powers

homealone

Is it hot in here or are they crazy?

‘XL’ in Keystone XL stands for X-tra Lethal, says abortion advocate Barbara Boxer; Updated

November 18, 2014 12:16 PM by Doug Powers

boxer

X-tra large demagogue

More chilling news for Al Gore

November 16, 2014 09:39 PM by Doug Powers

gorebear

Another doom & gloom prediction put on ice

Emission Impossible: Obama reaches ‘climate change’ agreement with China

November 12, 2014 07:53 AM by Doug Powers

uschina

What could go wrong?


Categories: Barack Obama, Enviro-nitwits, global warming

Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook