The EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan would cause significant damage to the economy. A typical family of four would see its income decline by more than $1,300 a year on average from 2020 to 2025.
There is little evidence that the CPP would benefit the environment; the significant effect would be damage to our economy.
An excerpt from the congressional testimony by Dr. Kevin Dayaratna: “Even if all carbon-dioxide emissions were brought to (literally) zero in the United States, global temperatures would change by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius. Completely eliminating all carbon-dioxide emissions in all industrialized countries across the globe would fail to reduce global temperatures by more than half of a degree Celsius.” www.heritage.org/research/tes…
I'm no expert on the Clean Power Plan nor its potential economic impacts, but isn't curbing the primary driver of global warming important to our collective future? If this isn't a good plan, then what is?
As we indicated above, there is little evidence CPP would benefit the environment. The question then is, how responsible is it to place such a substantial burden on American families for no discernible gain?
Sure, that is what your organization claims. Isn't it more responsible though to develop a plan that has both economic and environmental gains than to simply advocate for no plan at all?
Well perhaps it would be a noble cause for an organization such as The Heritage Foundation to research alternatives to the Clean Power Plan since I believe it does fit well with the organization's mission to promote a stronger society and economy. Multiple years with net gains from revenues in the millions could make something like that feasible.
The EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan would cause significant damage to the economy. A typical family of four would see its income decline by more than $1,300 a year on average from 2020 to 2025.
But is this off set by savings in health care? or the sheer fact that it will help stop destroying the planet.
There is little evidence that the CPP would benefit the environment; the significant effect would be damage to our economy.
An excerpt from the congressional testimony by Dr. Kevin Dayaratna: “Even if all carbon-dioxide emissions were brought to (literally) zero in the United States, global temperatures would change by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius. Completely eliminating all carbon-dioxide emissions in all industrialized countries across the globe would fail to reduce global temperatures by more than half of a degree Celsius.” www.heritage.org/research/tes…
Interesting that you didn't answer the question.
I'm no expert on the Clean Power Plan nor its potential economic impacts, but isn't curbing the primary driver of global warming important to our collective future? If this isn't a good plan, then what is?
As we indicated above, there is little evidence CPP would benefit the environment. The question then is, how responsible is it to place such a substantial burden on American families for no discernible gain?
Sure, that is what your organization claims. Isn't it more responsible though to develop a plan that has both economic and environmental gains than to simply advocate for no plan at all?
Most certainly, but a cost-and-benefit analysis would be a part of that plan. When it comes to the CPP, there is a lot of pain for no real gain.
Well perhaps it would be a noble cause for an organization such as The Heritage Foundation to research alternatives to the Clean Power Plan since I believe it does fit well with the organization's mission to promote a stronger society and economy. Multiple years with net gains from revenues in the millions could make something like that feasible.