Issue: Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are primary contributors to climate change. The most significant sources of GHG emissions are anthropogenic, mostly as a result of combustion of fossil fuels.... [ie. the usual dubious UN IPCC dogma]
Cost-benefit statement: The proposed Regulations are estimated to result in a reduction of approximately 175 Mt CO2 of GHG emissions over the period 2015–2030. The present value of the costs of the proposed Regulations is estimated at $8.2 billion, largely due to the incremental natural gas costs ($4.8 billion), reduced net exports and new capital costs. The present value of the benefits are estimated at $9.7 billion, largely due to the avoided social cost of carbon (SCC) of $4.3 billion, avoided generation costs of $3.8 billion, and health benefits from reduced smog exposure of $1.4 billion. The net present value (NPV) ... blah, blah, blah ... [...avoided social cost and health benefits? Speculative, unverifiable malarky.]The Friends of Science Society's response to the proposed regulations was submitted on Sept 30.
It's so maddening to see the Conservatives blowing this kind of cash to no effect except appeasing the green flake lobby. As if they can ever be appeased by anything short of a completely wrecked economy.
5 comments:
Actually their goal is the total destruction of the economy in Western countries, and we can thank our government for playing the fool and assisting them.
True, that's the environmentalist version of globalization.
Is it time to rename our Prime Minister Dalton Harper??
Rob C
i thought we elected a conservative federal government.
The Harpers are planning to spend $35 billion on new navy ships. The Navy is perhaps the most obsolete part of any country's military. The money spent on shuttering coal fired power stations is nothing really. I know I voted for the Cs because I did not want Cap&Trade, so far they have kept their promise, that's all that matters to me; no price on carbon. If they want to shut down my coal generation plants, pay me.
Post a Comment