source: IBD, March 24th
IBD says:
The EPA has prepared a finding for review that global warming is a public health threat. . .See also MaxedOutMama.
The irony here is that wealthier societies are the healthier societies, and attempts to regulate emissions are attempts to restrain economic growth. Kyoto and its descendants are recipes for global poverty that hurt the very populations they purport to help.
According to a Heritage Foundation analysis, "using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases will be very costly, even given the most generous assumptions." Clean Air Act regulation of greenhouse gases "could spur additional investment," Heritage acknowledges, but "this investment was completely undermined by the higher energy prices."
So much so, says Heritage, that "cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion with single-year losses of nearly $650 billion." Annual job losses would exceed 800,000 for several years, with some industries experiencing job losses exceeding 50%.
(via Planet Gore)
3 comments:
That chart is missing one key word, "estimated". It's somewhat obvious, but I'd say it should be on there explicitly, rather than implicitly.
Otherwise it invites attempts to claim it is intentionally deceptive.
====
No s***: Word Verif is "saster" -- all it's missing is the "di".
That's what the "e" is on the X axis.
I know that. But I'm smarter than the av'rage b'ar.
It's also inherently obvious from the fact that it's a projection.
But the term "estimated" is still called for somewhere in the chart or accompanying text. Just for those who are dumber than the av'rage b'ar, or, more critically, the average lefty who would accuse people of being disingenuous for not indicating that clearly. Not that I'm worried about the opinion of the idiot lefty, it just seems a small price to pay for denying the lefty any ammo to use on a fence-sitter.
Post a Comment