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

Predictable scapegoat for first ever diagnosis of Ebola in US

September 30, 2014 09:20 PM by Doug Powers

obamamicroscope

New scare tactic highlights gravity of the ‘climate crisis’

September 30, 2014 08:46 AM by Doug Powers

gravity

Don’t let go of Al Gore!

Al Gore has lost so much weight that he makes a Prius look like a Chevy Suburban SUV

September 23, 2014 09:34 AM by Doug Powers

suburban

The incredible shrinking former vice president


Categories: Al Gore, Enviro-nitwits, global warming, Hollyweird

Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook