Over at National Review Online Phil Kerpen takes a look at the economic impact of “cap and trade” policies (see IWF on this issue here and here for starters).  The results of such policies, as we’ve mentioned here on Inkwell, aren’t pretty: massive job losses, a big drop in GDP, higher energy prices, and much more.

So for all those massive drawbacks, Kerpen wonders what benefits we would get.  The answer, again, isn’t pretty:

And what do we buy, environmentally, with this $600 billion hit to the economy?  Basically, nothing.

Cap-and-trade is already failing to reduce emissions in Europe. And even if emissions targets are met, climate models show that the reductions would have only a minuscule impact on global temperature and would not be detectable against the background of natural variation. That’s why leading climate alarmists have hailed a Kyoto-style cap-and-trade regime as just the first step of thirty to curb global economic activity.

Back in 1992, U.N. climate chief Maurice Strong was remarkably candid about the green movement’s real purpose: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t our responsibility to bring that about?”

More here.