EPA Stuff You Won't See in the MSM

OK. I lied. This editorial came from the Pittsburgh newspaper.

...The agency would rather not talk about the report’s macroeconomic analysis. It says such regulations cut Gross Domestic Product in 2010 by $32 billion to $79 billion and could result by 2020 in anything from a $110 billion loss to a $5 billion gain — far smaller than that highly suspect $2 trillion in “benefits.”

*Cough* That's the EPA's very own report, by the way, not some Heritage Foundation paper.

(By the way, on the 2020 bet, I'll take the $110Bn loss side of the bet.)

What's the alleged "good news" in the EPA distortion report?

The EPA loves to talk about that report’s cost-benefit analysis projecting up to $2 trillion in annual economic benefits by 2020 from air quality regulations. But that’s based on surveys of people’s “willingness to pay” to avoid slightly greater health risks — not on anything that actually adds to economic output or employment.

IOW, it touts ephemeral, non-disprovable "facts" which by definition are not "facts" but theories.

HT: JunkScience