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

Heir apparent to Al Gore proves he’s totally up to the challenge

March 22, 2015 09:29 AM by Doug Powers

pharrell

“Without Pharrell our planet would not survive.”

Maybe the EPA will fulfill FOIA requests after they’re done trying to regulate your grill emissions

March 13, 2015 12:40 PM by Doug Powers

epa

The spatula cops are sniffing around your BBQ

Guess what might be to blame for the rise of ISIS

March 4, 2015 09:30 PM by Doug Powers

jihadi

Hint: Sounds like “noble swarming” or “climb that range”

Starbucks working diligently to protect the planet from threat posed by whipped cream

February 24, 2015 10:45 AM by Doug Powers

whipped

Whole latte climate concern

Great Lakes’ failure to cooperate with Al Gore’s doomsday alarmism a sure sign of climate change, says Bill Nye

February 19, 2015 08:32 PM by Doug Powers

goreangry

Foiled again


Categories: Al Gore, Enviro-nitwits, global warming

Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook