This from Stephen Heins

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) called the move Friday "a backdoor carbon tax” that would lead to higher energy costs. "The administration is laying the traps to justify punishing new regulations," Barrasso said in a statement. "Since the president can’t rationalize the crippling costs of his climate policies, he needs to exaggerate the benefits.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/02/26/biden-cost-climate-change/

In a recent interview, Biden’s national climate adviser, Gina McCarthy, said the administration is setting an initial price to inform its policies "and then work more diligently about what the actual cost might be as we move forward, and get the information that we need to be able to do that.”

Excuse me if Gina McCarthy has lost credibility with me:
During hearings in Congress (2013, 2014, 2015), Gina McCarthy admitted that "Clean Power Plan" had no measurable climate impact: One hundredth of a degree. But she claimed the Clean Power Plan was symbolically important.

The EPA did an original Cost/Benefit analysis of the Clean Power Plan, with the annual cost of $10 billion (many experts deemed far too low) and an annual benefit of about $9 million, but justified the Clean Power Plan by claiming $37 billion of "indirect health benefits,” annually.

Yes, there are several other McCarthy
stories.

Tim adds:

Why is this such a crisis now, while the world's economy is still hurting from the international vacation we all took? Shouldn't this braying jackass deal with Covid and the economic problems caused by his party's policies first, then worry about a long range problem (if one concedes it exisrts, which I do not)?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:40 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.