Warren Buffett's right-hand man, Charlie Munger, really did say that:
As reported by The Heritage Foundation in late April, Jackson did not even read the carbon tax bill before "claiming the economic impact of cap and trade legislation would be 'modest.'"
Asked how the EPA could produce a report on a bill they hadn’t even read yet, Jacson [sic] said: “We had to make assumptions.”
Those assumptions, according to the Foundation, included assuming that the GDP would be much less (2.5%) than the Obama administration actually expects (3.3%). This meant a U.S. economy smaller by $1.22 trillion.
A lower GDP means less energy use, thus fewer emissions, making it easier to meet the proposed emissions targets. A higher GDP means more energy use, thus more emissions, adding "considerable extra costs for emissions reduction."
The Obama EPA doesn't seem very interested in the American public learning the true costs to them of carbon cap and trade.With cap and trade, what reduction in the surface temperature of Planet Earth could we expect by the year 2060? Fourteen one-hundreths of a degree. Fahrenheit. Provided of course, that China and India decide to reduce their CO2 production for every one of the next 50 years. Don't hold your breath.
The cost to your American household, according to the Congressional Budget Office, working with the Obama administration's deflated figures? About $1,600 per year, or $80,000 in today's dollars.
Bet you can't wait to get to work to pay that.
If you've got a job.
__________
Related posts:
Cap and Trade: Spreading Wealth from Where to Where?
Dems Wonder: Is Rationing Energy a Good Idea?
Obama: Cap and Trade Will "Skyrocket" Electricity Costs
Cap and Trade: Picking Money Out of Thin Air
Cap and Trade Politico Hauls Green to Bank
No comments:
Post a Comment