Why mitigating CO2 emissions is cost-ineffective

Watts Up With That?

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

A couple of weeks ago I appeared before the California State Assembly and told legislators that the cost of the State’s cap-and-trade legislation, which comes into full effect in August this year, will be $450 billion over a decade.

This was a deliberate underestimate. I bent over backward to see whether the Californian proposal could ever make any economic sense. The results, when I ran them through my simple model, confirmed what many have long suspected but few have calculated until now: that attempting to mitigate our sins of emission is one of the most cost-ineffective wastes of taxpayers’ money ever devised.

I had multiplied the $182-billion annual cost of California’s scheme and associated mitigation measures not by 10 but by 2.5 – a quarter of the true gross cost over a decade. The reason for effectively dividing the stated costs of California’s mitigation policies…

View original post 2,341 more words

Advertisements

ELECTRIC CARS ARE NO THREAT TO OIL

Friends of Science Calgary

Contributed by Robert Lyman © 2017

Robert Lyman will be one of our special guest speakers at the May 9th, 2017 “Climate Dogma Exposed” event at the Red and White Club, McMahon Stadium, Calgary.  Information and Tickets at http://www.friendsofscience.org or EventBrite.

At a recent conference in Calgary, Steve Kronin, a former under secretary in the U.S. Department of Energy and a New York University professor, predicted that electric vehicles will make up 50 percent of the vehicles on the road by 2050 and that this will pose a threat to the oil industry because of its dampening effect on fuel demand.

Kronin’s remarks echo those of many advocates for electric vehicles who enjoy speculating about the future. Their objective, perhaps, is to reinforce the thesis that there will be an easy and inevitable transition to a “decarbonized” world economy.

Let us, instead, examine the facts and draw our conclusions from them.

View original post 711 more words

The United States Should Stay Out of Syria

International Liberty

You would think the never-ending mess in Afghanistan would have taught us lessons.

Or maybe we might have learned lessons from the never-ending mess in Iraq.

Notwithstanding those unpleasant experiences, President Trump is expanding America’s intervention in Syria with missile strikes.

This rubs me the wrong way, but let’s look at what others are writing on this issue.

One of my colleagues at the Cato Institute, Gene Healy, isn’t impressed by Trump’s intervention.

Thus far, the administration has said nothing about the legal authority for the strikes. There’s not much that can be said: they’re plainly illegal. He had neither statutory nor constitutional authority to order them. …Without statutory cover, all that’s left is an appeal to presidential power under Article II of the Constitution. But that document vests the bulk of the military powers it grants in Congress, with the aim of “clogging, rather than facilitating war,” as George…

View original post 807 more words