June 8, 2009

Government accounting times two

Two stories showing our Federal Government in all it's glory. The Waxman-Markey Bill will not do what its purposed to do and cost everyone more to do it.... uh or rather not to do it.

So our esteemed congress is spending time debating an effort to enact a bill which will cost everyone more than they say in order to get absolutely nothing that they say.

This all makes sense, since the entire process is designed to fix a problem (AGW) that does not exist in the first place.

Time for a revolution?


“A Con for Our Time”

Writing at the FT, London School of Economics economist William Buiter calls the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (otherwise known as Waxman-Markey) “a total con”:

[Under ACES] emissions will not be reduced. But that is inconsistent with the
supposed desire to reduce emissions to 83 percent of their 2005 level by 2020
and to 17 percent of the 2005 level by 2050. Except that is it not inconsistent
if there is no intention to reduce emissions at all, but instead every intention to permit them to be raised above their 2005 levels. And that is of course what is going on.

Here I go beyond Buiter’s cogent critique to add a few quantitative details to how offsets under the bill will allow emissions to rise essentially indefinitely.

First, lets start with some rest here

From Heritage Foundation
Questions on EPA's Cost Estimates for Waxman-Markey Climate Change Legislation

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) analysis of the economic impact of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill relies on a variety of assumptions. These assumptions strongly bias the cost downward when compared to the results of studies done by the Center for Data Analysis (CDA) at The Heritage Foundation and by CRA International for the National Black Chamber of Commerce.[1]

CRA's economic analysis projects that by 2030 Waxman-Markey would reduce national GDP by roughly $350 billion below the baseline level, cut net employment by 2.5 million jobs (even after accounting for new "green" jobs), and reduce an average household's annual purchasing power by $830.[2] These projections compare with the devastating consequences found by The Heritage Foundation's CDA.[3]....... read rest here

No comments:

Post a Comment