Benefits Of Carbon Use Far Outweigh Its Costs

investors.com ^ | 3/20/2014 | ROGER BEZDEK AND PAUL DRIESSEN

[rktman]

The Environmental Protection Agency and other government agencies say fossil fuel and carbon dioxide emissions cause "dangerous global warming." Their latest strategy for advancing this thesis involves estimating the "social cost of carbon" — monetized damages associated with alleged climate risks.

The agencies assume Earth's climate is highly sensitive to CO2, then hypothesize almost every carbon cost, including the impact on agriculture, forestry, water resources, coastal cities, ecosystems, wildlife and human health.

But as a new Management Information Services report explains, they ignore the most obvious and enormous benefits of using fossil fuel and emitting carbon dioxide.

Had they followed federal laws and basic benefit-cost analysis rules, they would have found that hydrocarbon and carbon dioxide benefits outweigh the cost by at as much as 500-to-1!

[rktman]

Sorry folks. The SCOTUS said it's bad so it must be bad. Didiots. Don't mess with mother nature. My greenery loves it some CO2. It's chow time to them. They are begging for more. There is nothing anyone can tell the goreons that'll convince them that they are tilting at windmills (LOL!) and that there arguments are eclipsed by reality. I'm just hoping the flare out soon and things get back to normal. Whatever normal is. Hey al and associates. I can't seem to find reference to just what exactly the absolute "correct" temperature and the absolute "correct" CO2 ppm is so maybe you can provide us with an answer besides "less than what it is now".

[Para-Ord.45]

bm