Global warming proposals would gut N.C. economy

Ytterligare ett exempel på de gigantiska kostnaderna för att inför handel med utsläppsrätter och begränsningar i CO2. I det här fallet rör det sig om North Carolina som skulle förlora 33 000 jobb och kosta delstatens BNP 4,5 Miljarder dollar. Plus en halv miljard dollar i investeringar, sänka folkets disponibla inkomst med 2,2 miljarder dollar.

Bara för att nämna NÅGRA effekter.

Det är alltså detta sanslösa och mycket dyra system som Global Warming Hysterikerna vill tvinga på världen. Och politikerna fullkomligt älskar detta system då de kan motivera i stort sett vilken skatte-/avgiftshöjning som helst med detta system.

Och detta gigantiska skojeri som främjar fusk i stor skala vill alltså Global Warming Hysterikerna tvinga på resten av världen!

Och våra svenska politiker vill att Sverige skall gå i täten och vara världsledande på detta skojeri. Arma svenska folk som kommer att få betala dessa gigantiska kostnader för dessa nonsensåtgärder.

När skall våra kära politiker börja FÖRSTÅ de ekonomiska realiteterna av Global Warming Hysterin? Och de ofantliga summor som kommer att förslösas på nonsensåtgärder. Åtgärder som är ett direkt hot mot vår demokrati, vår frihet, vårt välstånd och vår ekonomi! Dessa orimliga kostnader utgör ett direkt hot för den industriella överlevnaden i den här delen av världen. Men det pratar man tyst om.

Som sagt, fler och fler börjar INSE de GIGANTISKA KOSTNADERNA för att genomföra dessa nonsensåtgärder. När skall de svenska politikerna vakna – När sista lampan har släckts och all industri är borta?

Se bl.a. mina inlägg: Carbon plan ‘to cost business $22bn’”Emissions Trading – a Weapon of Mass Taxation”,  Giant Global Warming Tax Hikes Headed Your WayDon’t bother with emissions trading law, the Chambers of Commerce tells MPsEurope finds that cutting carbon emissions is far easier said than done.  Geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter!

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.johnlocke.org/press_releases/display_story.html?id=360

Global warming proposals would gut N.C. economy

Economist to report findings to climate change commission

Dr. Roy Cordato

April 21, 2008

RALEIGH – North Carolina would lose more than 33,000 jobs and face a $4.5 billion hit to its Gross State Product by 2011, if lawmakers adopt just a fraction of the policies under consideration now to address climate change. A Boston-based economist who has analyzed the policy proposals will deliver that message Tuesday to a legislative study group.

The policies studied also would cost the state more than $502 million in investment, lower real disposable income by $2.2 billion, and reduce state and local revenue by more than $184 million, said David Tuerck, chairman of the Suffolk University Department of Economics and executive director of the department’s research arm, the Beacon Hill Institute. Tuerck is scheduled to testify to the N.C. Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change during its meeting 11 a.m. Tuesday in Raleigh.

The climate commission is considering 56 policy proposals developed by the Climate Action Plan Advisory Group. The proposals aim to limit global warming by cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Supporters contend those policy proposals would help North Carolina’s economy. A report from the Appalachian State University Energy Center suggests the policies would generate more than 300,000 jobs by 2020 and boost Gross State Product by nearly $1.5 billion.

At the request of the John Locke Foundation, Beacon Hill Institute researchers tested nine of the proposed policies. Those tested include a cap-and-trade program for CO2 emissions, a surcharge for high-emission vehicles, a California-style vehicle emission standard, and mandates for utility companies to spend money on energy-efficiency and demand-management programs.

Rigorous testing using standard economic analysis yielded far more pessimistic results than those used to support the policies, Tuerck said in an interview. ”There’s an attempt to put a happy face on this legislation that’s going forward,” he said. ”And the attempt is made by trying to show that implementing this legislation would create jobs and would expand economic activity in the state, rather than contract it. And the trouble with that particular representation is that it doesn’t make any sense.”

You can’t create jobs that are good jobs – that are adding to the state economy – by shifting workers from more productive to less productive activities,” he added. ”You can’t create good jobs, the kind of jobs you want to create, by increasing energy costs, by increasing the price of electricity, by imposing what amount to new taxes. This is not the way to create jobs.”

”All these claims about job creation and the like are bogus claims and unsupportable by even the most naïve sort of economic analysis,” Tuerck said.

The contrast between the Beacon Hill Institute’s numbers and the Appalachian State report should surprise no one, said Dr. Roy Cordato, JLF Vice President for Research and Resident Scholar. ”The Appalachian State ‘economic’ study had nothing to do with the university’s economics department,” said Cordato, a Ph.D. economist. ”ASU economics professor John Whitehead has raised serious questions about the report – writing on his Web site that he’s ‘very skeptical’ any positive benefits from climate change policies would ‘overtake’ the negative effects.”

New information from the Beacon Hill Institute should raise red flags for North Carolina policy makers, Cordato said. ”It’s clear that real economic analysis shows these proposed policies would have much more drastic negative impacts than North Carolinians have been led to believe,” he said. ”And remember that the Beacon Hill Institute has analyzed nine of the 56 proposals. The total negative impact is likely even greater than these numbers show.”

”Do we really want to hurt our economy and shed thousands of jobs for these policies?” Cordato asked. ”Can North Carolina legislators honestly say that taxpayers and citizens should bear these costs to support policies that have no chance of affecting the climate in any significant way?”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

Annonser

Etiketter:

4 svar to “Global warming proposals would gut N.C. economy”

  1. Climate Catastrophe for The state of Washington « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] to save planet’,  A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!,  Global warming proposals would gut N.C. economy,  An Organization Diagram from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!,  Carbon plan ‘to cost […]

  2. McWavering: What’s the Deal-Breaker for Lieberman-Warner? « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] Global Climate Change Legislation, Climate Catastrophe for The state of Washington,  Global warming proposals would gut N.C. economy,  Carbon plan ‘to cost […]

  3. European workers aren’t believers in the myth of “green jobs.” « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] to save planet’,  A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!,  Global warming proposals would gut N.C. economy,  An Organization Diagram from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!,  Carbon plan ‘to cost […]

  4. The perfect “Eco Friendly” life for humans according to The Global Warming Hysterics « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] to save planet’,  A Big Nyet: Russia Doesn’t Want any Binding Caps on Carbon!,  Global warming proposals would gut N.C. economy,  An Organization Diagram from Hell – Welcome to carbon trading!,  Carbon plan ‘to cost […]

Lämna ett svar till European workers aren’t believers in the myth of “green jobs.” « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Avbryt svar

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Google-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Google-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut /  Ändra )

Ansluter till %s


%d bloggare gillar detta: