James Pethokoukis

Krugman: Dem green job claims are bogus

June 29, 2009

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the cap-and-trade bill was about “jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs.” But liberal economist Paul Krugman tells National Public Radio a different story (thanks to OpenMarket):

What is the cap-and-trade bill?

June 26, 2009

This is a smart summary: “Waxman-Markey is the climate policy equivalent of Sarbanes-Oxley financial regulation, guaranteeing extensive new bureaucracy and substantial economic cost to the productive economy while achieving few of its stated objectives. And the “cap and trade” system at the heart of the bill is riddled with so many loopholes that it should be considered more of a “hairnet and giveaway.”

Why is clean/green energy the next big thing …

June 26, 2009

and not genetic engineering, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, robotics or something else that Washington isn’t focusing on? Just asking …

White House: Climate change could turn Minneapolis into Miami

June 16, 2009

This long awaited U.S. government report sees U.S. temps rising as much as  10 degrees this century. Here is the exec summary. Unless this stuff comes with an economic cost-benefit anlysis of mitigation strategies, you are really only getting half the story

Study: Cap-and-trade will cost U.S. families $1,200 a year

June 15, 2009

From the non-partisan Tax Foundation:

A new Tax Foundation calculator now shows how much a U.S. cap-and-trade system would cost individual households annually. The Tax Household Cap-and-Trade Burden Calculator is based upon a study released in March, Tax Foundation Working Paper No. 6, “Who Pays for Climate Policy? New Estimates of the Household Burden and Economic Impact of a U.S. Cap-and-Trade System.” The study shows that a cap-and-trade system designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent would place an annual burden of $144.8 billion on American households. The average annual household burden would be $1,218, which would be approximately 2% of the average household income.

Rail not as green as you might think

June 8, 2009

Here is an interesting bit from New Scientist that the White House might want to consider before spending billions on high-speed rail: