Global Warming Bill Would Inflict New Great Depression
Lieberman-Warner legislation would slash 6.9 percent GDP off U.S. economy

Prisonplanet | March 21, 2008

By Paul Joseph Watson

A new bill aimed at combating global warming currently being considered by the Senate would, if passed, inflict a new great depression on America by reducing GDP by 6.9 percent - a figure comparable with the economic meltdown of 1929 and 1930.

The shocking consequences of the Lieberman-Warner legislation, known as America's Climate Security Act, were revealed by the Environmental Protection Agency's economic analysis of the bill this week, which forecast a whopping $2.9 trillion would be shaved off the economy by the year 2050.

In comparison, despite the fact that America is teetering on the brink of a recession or is already in one according to many experts, GDP still increased by 0.7 percent in 2007. Imagine what effect a -6.9 percent swing would have - an economy ten times worse than it is now.

As JunkScience.com's Steven Milloy highlights, "For more perspective, consider that during 1929 and 1930, the first two years of the Great Depression, GDP declined by 8.6 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively."

And what would we get for such a massive self-inflicted wound? It ought to be something that is climatically spectacular, right? You be the judge.

The EPA says that by the year 2095 — 45 years after GDP has been slashed by 6.9 percent — atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would be 25 parts per million lower than if no greenhouse gas regulation were implemented.

Keeping in mind that the current atmospheric CO2 level is 380 ppm and the projected 2095 CO2 level is about 500 ppm, according to the EPA, what are the potential global temperature implications for such a slight change in atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Not much, as average global temperature would only be reduced by a maximum of about 0.10 to 0.20 degrees Celsius, according to existing research.

Sacrificing many trillions of dollars of GDP for a trivial, 45-year-delayed and merely hypothetical reduction in average global temperature must be considered as exponentially more asinine than the dot-bombs of the late-1990s and the NINJA subprime loans that we now look upon scornfully.

Add to this the fact that, as climate cult alarmists are loathe to admit, ice core samples clearly show that carbon dioxide is a consequence of temperature increase and not a cause of it, sometimes lagging behind by as much as 800 years, and the whole issue starts to look even more hair brained.

Global temperatures have remained reasonably flat since a decline in 1998 and cooling trends are now being observed despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels have increased in the atmosphere (see graph below).

Indeed, the latest evidence from climatological surveys shows that the earth's upper oceans and the troposphere, the primary indicators of climate change, have not been warming for the last 4 years.

Meanwhile, places like Saudi Arabia and China have experienced their coldest winters for decades if not a hundred years plus.

On the whole, the world is getting colder (see above), which is why "global warming" suddenly became "climate change" when temperature levels since 2003 started to prove the alarmists wrong.

Once again, the enviro-mentalists are proposing measures that would make life hell for the poor and middle classes and completely ransack the economy while creating global financial instability that would make today's problems look like a walk in the park - all based on the justification of saving the planet from a potential 0.10 degrees Celsius increase in temperature that isn't even guaranteed because the science behind it is complete bunk.

In another example of outright frothing lunacy, NASA climate scientist Dr. James E. Hansen recently issued a report that called for phasing out coal power completely by the year 2030.

"An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2 is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects," states the report.

As the Business and Media Institute points out, coal fired plants account for no less than 50 percent of all electricity generated in the United States. To eliminate coal use would completely cripple the global economy and lead soaring energy costs to at least a doubling of current levels.

As we reported earlier this month, a recent Carnegie Institution report calls for carbon emissions to be reduced to near zero in order to combat global warming, despite the fact that such a move would return man to the stone age if not end civilization as we know it and kill billions.

The proposal was afforded serious gravitas by news outlets like the Washington Post absent even a passing mention of what its disastrous consequences would be for humanity.