Where’s the beef?
More on Governor Tim Pawlenty’s well meaning but ultimately worthless planet cooling scheme can be found here.
And still, we have no idea what economic costs are associated with reducing Minnesota’s man-made emissions by 80 percent of less than one percent (Minnesota’s contribution) of the total of 25 percent (America) of the less than 5 percent total of overall man-made emissions.
We also have no idea that the reduction will have any effect on average temperature, or what that effect will be. If Kyoto was supposed to reduce global temperatures by .04 degrees in a century, than Pawlenty’s plan is sure to be just a miniscule fraction of that.
One wonders what the economic figures will look like next to the estimated cooling projections, and how much each thousandth (if that) of a degree will cost.
Not surprisingly, those numbers are all but impossible to find, and are sure to remain so.
UPDATE: Just noticed an extra “zero” in the Kyoto figure. It has been changed from “.004″ to “.04″ to reflect the accurate projections.
I’m disappointed in your “negativity” on the
supposed “economic costs” of reducing greenhouse gases.
Costs compared to what?
I’ve yet to see any mention in the conservative media about the savings to actual taxpayers in reducing their own usage - i.e. consumption = $ - as they only concentrate on the loss of their energy money, and the oft-referred to outrageous amount of cash they would need to spend to keep emissions reasonable.
You’re blindly following the supposed lack of money to industry, and relating that to pie-in-the-sky economic meltdown, when in actuality, there is a ton of cash to be made with responsible compliance.
I don’t know how you can sleep thinking and beleiving the “anti greenhousers” line about the giant economic costs of cleaning their own waste.
Quoting the miniscule %s only shows how ridiculous this argument has fallen, and how the “anti-gh” group is becoming it’s own ridiculous little religion, using the mathematics of macro-economics as their scripture.