Mainstream media apologists for President Obama reacted predictably Wednesday to a study claiming massive costs will result from a key initiative in the chief executive's global warming regulatory agenda.
The study was conducted by the independent consulting firm IHS for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Energy Institute.
The study focused on a regulatory program created by the Natural Resources Defense Council that is thought to be similar to a new proposal Obama will unveil June 2 to reduce power-plant carbon emissions. Obama's goal is to reduce emissions to 42 percent of 2005 levels by 2030.
$50 billion and counting
The IHS study concluded that the NRDC plan, which requires widespread conversion by electricity generating power plants from coal to natural gas fuel and adoption of Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology.
The major effects projected by IHS include:
• Loss of as many as 442,000 jobs in 2022.
• Putting 224,000 Americans out of work, on average, annually
• Increased economic costs of $51 billion in GDP loss annually
• Lower disposable household income by $586 billion
• Increase consumer electricity costs by more than $289 billion.
See no evil, hear no evil, report no evil
The New York Times dealt with release of the IHS study apparently by simply ignoring it. A search of the Times website on the title of the study produced no results.
Meanwhile, the Times' Coral Davenport filed a 20 paragraph story reporting that Obama will announce a new Environmental Protection Agency rule June 2 that will force adoption by industry and state governments of the administration's carbon emissions regulatory program.
"It would be the strongest action ever taken by an American president to tackle climate change and could become one of the defining elements of Mr. Obama's legacy," Davenport reported.
New rule bigger than Obamacare
The forthcoming carbon emissions rule reportedly will be about 3,000 pages long. The Obamacare law was approximately 2,700 pages long.
Despite the immensity of the rule, a search of the Washington Post website on the IHS study's title also produced no results. Similarly, a search of the USA Today website on the title produced no results.
By contrast, the Los Angeles Times' main story on Obama's plans ignored the IHS Study, but it was covered in a shorter secondary story.
On today's washingtonexaminer.com
Columnist/Jed Babbin: Obama should make public details of his side deal with Iran on nukes.
Columnist/David Freddoso: If this is how the feds treat vets, what will they do to you?
Columnist/Michael Barone: Despite Thomas Piketty, voters reject redistribution.
Columnist/Cal Thomas: Europe's "tea party" scores big in EU parliament voting.
Op-ed/Gov. Bobby Jindal: New federal rules help elite college students at expense of poor, minority pupils.
Beltway Confidential/Joel Gehrke: Dem fundraisers held at home where Cochran rents from top aide.
Beltway Confidential/Kevin Daley: White House concussion summit could focus new attention on Hillary Clinton's health.
PennAve/Susan Ferrechio: VA exec claims "secret wait lists" were actually "interim work product."
Legal Newsline/Kyla Asbury: Class-action lawsuit filed against Rite-Aid claiming spam texts.
In other news
Time Magazine: Google says it is overwhelmingly white and male.
U.S. News & World Report: Marco Rubio's role of the dice.
The American Thinker: Civil service system is the culprit in the VA scandal.
The American Spectator: Reparation and the Great Unmentionable Fact about the Democratic Party.
The American Conservative: Decaying states are as dangerous today as Napoleon's armies were in 1814.
The Federalist: Crony capitalism and the tyranny of small decisions.
The Daily Beast: Obama's $5 billion counterterrorism slush fund.
The American Prospect: The Great American Chain Gang.
Salon.com: Elliot Rodger's creepy Isla Vista predecessor.
Mother Jones: Neil deGrasse Tyson destroys climate deniers.
Jammie Wearing Fools: Obama's latest extremist climate change agenda could cost $50 billion.