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

Going green: Obama and Bill Nye’s Earth Day fuel-fry cost taxpayers a cool million

June 24, 2015 09:53 PM by Doug Powers

billnye

A small price to pay for hypocrisy of this caliber

Holy hypocrisy and hot air

June 24, 2015 08:11 AM by Michelle Malkin

EPA chief wants to help ‘climate deniers’ be ‘normal’

June 24, 2015 07:58 AM by Doug Powers

shock1

Help her, help YOU

Friday idiocy dump: Obama admin says EPA’s new truck emission regs will make shipping things totally cheaper

June 19, 2015 02:36 PM by Doug Powers

crazy

The “E” in EPA doesn’t stand for “economics”

G7 agrees to control earth’s temperature but remains split on if Superman could beat up Batman

June 9, 2015 10:25 AM by Doug Powers

g7

The ‘Mercury’ Seven


Categories: Al Gore, Barack Obama, Enviro-nitwits, global warming

Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook