Sarcasm??? I Hope So….

penguinKurt Bouwhuis, Mackinac Center Intern

“We’ve heard a lot of whining over the last few months that the “cost” of coming climate change legislation will kill jobs, destroy industry, kick puppy dogs, sicken orphans … basically the same old barge filled with scary warnings that have been used since time immemorial about every major piece of environmental legislation (if history is any judge of the efficacy of these warnings, we could pass new climate change bills from today until the end of time and not destroy the economy).” – Eric B. – Michigan Liberal

If climate change bills don’t hinder the economy – why not abolish pollution of any kind all together?  Surely, making it illegal to pollute will make production much less costly.

This logic is faulty and here’s why: If environmentally friendly solutions make production so much easier, why are profit seeking individuals not capitalizing on the new opportunities.  Additionally, I find it hard to believe that restricting individuals from conducting voluntarily transactions is some how going to make people better off.

Lastly, it would be difficult to measure all the effects of any one piece of legislation.  If wind turbines are made mandatory, and GDP goes up by .1%, we cannot say that the wind turbines caused the .1% increase.  Each and every year, thousands of new laws are passed, all of which affect the actions of millions of individuals that some call “the economy.”


3 thoughts on “Sarcasm??? I Hope So….

  1. The Heritage Foundation found that this bill could cost a family of four $6,800 by 2035. The low ball figures congress is parading are coming from 2020 before the cap on emissions is lowered significantly. While population grows and industry advances, the government is expecting the US to produce less and less greenhouse gas. How can this have Pelosi saying “…just remember these four words for what this legislation means: jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs”

  2. Elsewhere the erstwhile Eric asserts that, if big biz is behind it, cap’n’trade must be good rather than recognizing it as another rent-seeking strategy that’ll allow them to shut down smaller competitors who can’t afford to buy government indulgences.

    • Nooo…. That is not possible. I can’t think of any reasons why big companies would want to shield themselves from competition.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s