Director of the CBO on Cap and Trade, and Climate Change Truth
Follow this logic:
"a relatively pessimistic estimate for the loss in projected real gross domestic product [GDP] due to climate change is about 3 percent…by [the year] 2100"
"Reducing the risk of climate change would come at some cost to the economy. For example, the Congressional Budget Office…concludes that the cap-and-trade provisions of H.R. 2454…would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) below what it would otherwise have been—by roughly ¼ percent to ¾ percent in 2020 and by between 1 percent and 3½ percent in 2050. By way of comparison, CBO projects that real (inflation-adjusted) GDP will be roughly two and a half times as large in 2050 as it is today, so those changes would be comparatively modest."
Yeah, and even more "modest" in 2100. The cost in 2050 is still $500billion, which is $500billion less to divide among American citizens - lower standards of living, less economic opportunity, less housing, less social welfare, less everything.
And why?
Read this excellent article from the telegraph. Unlike my usual modus operandi I will not just post it here because it is very very long. So be prepared to sit down for a good read that will change your view on GHG emissions and global warming.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change-catastrophe.html
One great quote from the article:
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly exaggerated computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.” - Prof Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technolgy, one of the most distinguished climatologists in the world, who has done as much as anyone in the past 20 years to expose the emptiness of the IPCC’s claim that its reports represent a “consensus” of the views of “the world’s top climate scientists”.
"a relatively pessimistic estimate for the loss in projected real gross domestic product [GDP] due to climate change is about 3 percent…by [the year] 2100"
"Reducing the risk of climate change would come at some cost to the economy. For example, the Congressional Budget Office…concludes that the cap-and-trade provisions of H.R. 2454…would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) below what it would otherwise have been—by roughly ¼ percent to ¾ percent in 2020 and by between 1 percent and 3½ percent in 2050. By way of comparison, CBO projects that real (inflation-adjusted) GDP will be roughly two and a half times as large in 2050 as it is today, so those changes would be comparatively modest."
Yeah, and even more "modest" in 2100. The cost in 2050 is still $500billion, which is $500billion less to divide among American citizens - lower standards of living, less economic opportunity, less housing, less social welfare, less everything.
And why?
Read this excellent article from the telegraph. Unlike my usual modus operandi I will not just post it here because it is very very long. So be prepared to sit down for a good read that will change your view on GHG emissions and global warming.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change-catastrophe.html
One great quote from the article:
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly exaggerated computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.” - Prof Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technolgy, one of the most distinguished climatologists in the world, who has done as much as anyone in the past 20 years to expose the emptiness of the IPCC’s claim that its reports represent a “consensus” of the views of “the world’s top climate scientists”.
Comments
Post a Comment