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

Obama: U.S. not losing to ISIS, but definitely getting pushed around by ‘climate change’

May 21, 2015 08:21 PM by Doug Powers

obamaclosing

Kool Aid is for closers

Gore / great lakes

May 20, 2015 09:08 PM by Doug Powers

gorebear

Consistency offsets

Bernie Sanders stumbles upon first campaign slogan: No car in every garage

May 1, 2015 09:16 PM by Doug Powers

sanders1

The socialist anti-Hoover

Double dribblers at OFA toss up embarrassing desperation shot on ‘climate change’

April 22, 2015 09:10 PM by Doug Powers

obamabball

Settled science!


Categories: Barack Obama, Enviro-nitwits, global warming

Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook