EPA sees little economic impact from CO2 cuts - Reuters

Source: Reuters

EPA sees little economic impact from CO2 cuts
Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:28PM EDT

-snip-

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate proposal to cap and
eventually reduce heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions would
stunt economic growth by no more than 1.6 percent by 2030, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found on Tuesday.

The EPA analysis counters claims from some who oppose mandatory
caps on carbon dioxide emissions that the U.S. economy would take
a sizable hit if the United States enacted legislation backed by
Democratic leaders of both the Senate and House of Representatives.

Senators Joseph Lieberman, Connecticut Independent, and John
McCain, Arizona Republican, asked the EPA in February to analyze
their plan to cut U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 65 percent below
1990 levels by 2050.

The EPA found that the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of
2007 would shave up to 1.6 percent, or $419 billion, off a baseline
forecast for U.S. gross domestic product in 2030 and up to 3.2
percent, or $1.332 trillion, by 2050.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN2423144520070724

I would suggest a medium-sized country, perhaps Germany,
and some US state, how about New Jersey

This is BUSH's EPA. If they say only a 1.6% loss, you better believe it would be rosier than this. Many people (Rocky Mountain Institute, Paul Hawken, etc) assert that we would MAKE money off re-designing our economy to eliminate waste, which is what CO2 is...

keep in mind that Europeans are usualy credited here
with intelligence, you should inquire there

looks like BS to me
can this be tested on a small country, or somethimg?

Its common sense, new technology almost always leads to economic growth.

Read through parts of it...I think there are too many large assumptions (about things like electrical demand, generation with lower CO2 output, developing nations capping their output of CO2, etc) for this to be very useful. Industry groups and anti-regulatory types will be all over that.

Also, even under the most rosy scenarios, they are still talking about atmospheric CO2 concentration increases to 450ppm and beyond in the near term. That's kinda like telling the executioner to go ahead and cut your head off, but only a little bit, and be gentle about it, if you please.