Have you stopped to think what this would mean in real-life terms? Well, Steven F. Hayward, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of the annual "Index of Leading Environmental Indicators," has run the math.
As someone – Daniel Patrick Moynihan, I believe – once said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts." In the enviro-extremists' opinion, we can and must achieve the so-called "80-50" goal. But what are the facts? Even if such a reduction were somehow possible, what would be its effects upon our daily lives?
The answers are sobering. Take a look at Mr. Hayward's article in today's OpinionJounral.com and see for yourself: "The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change". Here's a pullquote:
We all ought to reflect on what an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 really means. When we do, it becomes clear that the president's target has one overwhelming virtue: Assuming emissions curbs are even necessary, his goal is at least realistic.
The same cannot be said for the carbon emissions targets espoused by the three presidential candidates and environmentalists. Indeed, these targets would send us back to emissions levels last witnessed when the cotton gin was in daily use.
Read the whole thing, then decide if that's what you want for your children's future. If not, you'd better get busy and let your elected representatives know before they force the country into these suicidal programs.
No comments:
Post a Comment