Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,106
Looks like it's back to the drawing board for AOC and Bernie:
Federal Judge Blocks Ridiculous, Key Component of Biden 'Climate Change' Scheme
By Mike Miller | Feb 13, 2022 12:15 PM ET
Specifically, a United States District Court judge on Friday blocked Biden’s January 2021 executive order that ridiculously factored in the mostly-contrived “social cost” of carbon emissions when creating rules regulating pollution, as reported by Fox News.
So what is the “social cost” of the “existential threat to mankind,” you ask? Let’s go to the inimitable Stanford economics professor, Marshall Burke for the answer:
The social cost of carbon is the single most important number for thinking about climate change. When we emit a ton of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it sticks around for a while and causes warming, affecting human outcomes. The social cost of carbon is the total damage that an additional ton of CO2 has on outcomes, converted into dollars.
Judge James Cain sided with Republican attorneys general from energy-producing states who rightly claimed Biden’s handlers’ attempt to raise the cost estimate of carbon emissions (catch that?) threatened to drive up energy costs while decreasing state revenues from energy production.
"Plaintiff States have sufficiently identified the kinds of harms to support injunctive relief.
Moreover, the Court finds that the Plaintiff States have made a clear showing of an injury-in-fact, and that such injury ‘cannot be undone through monetary remedies.
The Court agrees that the public interest and balance of equities weigh heavily in favor of granting a preliminary injunction."
More here:
https://redstate.com/mike_miller/20...ponent-of-biden-climate-change-scheme-n521563
Federal Judge Blocks Ridiculous, Key Component of Biden 'Climate Change' Scheme
By Mike Miller | Feb 13, 2022 12:15 PM ET
Specifically, a United States District Court judge on Friday blocked Biden’s January 2021 executive order that ridiculously factored in the mostly-contrived “social cost” of carbon emissions when creating rules regulating pollution, as reported by Fox News.
So what is the “social cost” of the “existential threat to mankind,” you ask? Let’s go to the inimitable Stanford economics professor, Marshall Burke for the answer:
The social cost of carbon is the single most important number for thinking about climate change. When we emit a ton of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it sticks around for a while and causes warming, affecting human outcomes. The social cost of carbon is the total damage that an additional ton of CO2 has on outcomes, converted into dollars.
Judge James Cain sided with Republican attorneys general from energy-producing states who rightly claimed Biden’s handlers’ attempt to raise the cost estimate of carbon emissions (catch that?) threatened to drive up energy costs while decreasing state revenues from energy production.
"Plaintiff States have sufficiently identified the kinds of harms to support injunctive relief.
Moreover, the Court finds that the Plaintiff States have made a clear showing of an injury-in-fact, and that such injury ‘cannot be undone through monetary remedies.
The Court agrees that the public interest and balance of equities weigh heavily in favor of granting a preliminary injunction."
More here:
https://redstate.com/mike_miller/20...ponent-of-biden-climate-change-scheme-n521563
