biden's EPA justifies their new rule forcing you to buy EVs by lying about the benefit

By law, before the federal government imposes a new RULE on Americans, there's supposed to be a careful, honest assessment of that rule's cost, benefits and negative effects.  

In an honest government, new rules would only be imposed if their benefits outweighed the cost and negative effects.  

biden's EPA recently DECREED a staggering new rule that would have the effect of forcing most cars sold after 2027 to be electric.  To support their RULE the agency produced a massive study--1,181 pages, and  another 884 pages of "regulatory impact analysis."

They either thought no one would read it, or that no Americans who did would know how to do math.

The EPA claims that from 2027 to 2055 its new rule will reduce total greenhouse gas emissions by 7.2 billion metric tons.  Even if we take their word for that, you have no way of knowing what effect this will have--which they well know.  The EPA report then spends many pages discussing the purported awful effects of greenhouse gas emissions.  But after the EPA issued its RULE, it admits it didn't "specifically quantify changes in climate impacts resulting from this rule in terms of avoided temperature change or sea-level rise."

To translate that baffle-gab: The EPA refuses to say how much forcing Americans to switch to electric vehicles (or public transit) will reduce future global temperature.

The reason is obvious:  Because the answer would make it clear to everyone that neither the EPA nor any other regime lackey can justify the new rule.  

See, the scientific consensus is that atmosphere contains about three TRILLION metric tons of CO2.  The agency claims that over 28 years its new rule will reduce CO2 emissions by 7.2 billion metric tons.  But because most scientists agree that the atmosphere contains about 3.2 x 10^12 metric tons of CO2, the EPA's new RULE would only reduce atmospheric CO2 by about 0.22%.  

That's NOT 22%, but barely over two-tenths of one percent.

Using the EPA's latest climate model, the agency claims that by 2100 the new rule would reduce the average global temperature by just 0.0068 degrees Celsius--far too small to be detectable.  And the cost of the rule?  They don't say.

But wait, it gets better!  The EPA claims that by reducing global temperature just 0.0068 C, its new rule will produce "climate benefits" of a staggering (and unbelievable) $1.6 TRILLION.

If you're wondering how the EPA can claim that reducing temp by 0.0068 C can possible produce $1.6 TRILLION in "climate benefits," join the club.  It doesn't pass the "smell test."  The EPA gets that because as with all biden-regime climate scams, the EPA has a bullshit number for "benefits per ton of CO2 reduction"--in this case $222 per ton.  The regime calls this "the social cost of carbon," supposedly the damage caused by CO2.

But despite decades of communist propaganda to the contrary, CO2 is NOT a pollutant, or a poison.  In fact plants LOVE CO2, and produce more food and leaves and blooms when they get more CO2.  And you never knew that greenhouse owners routinely buy tanks of compressed CO2, and at night close their vents and open the valves on the tanks to give their plants more of the stuff, to make their plants healthier.  Not a single college student--and few adults--knows that.

Moronic Democrat:  "OMG, duh evil pipo who own greenhouses are poisoning the planet by releasing CO2!"

Oh, you bet, sparky.  Say, where do ya suppose dey got dat CO2, eh?

Don't bother taxing your brain about that answer.

So if CO2 is neither a pollutant nor a poison, how does the EPA claim they can assign a "cost" to a ton of CO2, eh?  Easy: if sea levels were to rise by a foot or so, that would cause more flooding in coastal areas.  So SEE???

Wait...haven't we found that big chunks of land around New Jersey and New York are actually sinking?  (Spoiler: yes, we have.)  So if some of those areas are sinking, then what morons see as "dangerously rising sea levels" aren't actually rising dangerously at all!  Hmmm....

So when you strip away the hype, the EPA is implicitly claim that "damage" from CO2 can only be calculated by social scientists and politicians, rather than real scientists.  Clever.

So since the new EPA rule claims it would cut CO2 by 7.2 billion tons over 28 years, multiplied by $222 per ton of CO2 does give $1.6 TRILLION--despite the cost per ton being a totally fictitious number!

To repeat: the EPA predicts that cutting U.S. CO2 emissions by essentially forcing most new cars sold by 2028 to be electric will reduce the temperature by 0.0068 C (about 0.012 F).  So little more than 1/100th of one degree F--but that this microscopic drop will somehow save $1.6 Trillion just in the U.S!

Starting to see that they're making it all up?

Nah, you're not.  Because you aren't fluent in math (fair enough), you believe whatever the regime and their supporters in the Mainstream Media tell ya.  And that's understandable.