Everyone concerned about a possible recession in 2008 – after GDP grew less than 1 percent in the last quarter of 2007 – should consider the effects of a 4- to 5-percent reduction in economic growth. That’s what prominent economist Arthur Laffer projected under cap-and-trade programs, which he equated to “a potential income loss of about $10,800 for a family of four,” according to his study with Wayne Winegarden.

And that estimate was just for the example of reducing “greenhouse gases” 7 percent below 1990 levels (the original Kyoto Protocol target). Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama vow to cut those emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

The media don’t like to talk about how much that would cost us. In the latest study of global warming coverage, the Business & Media Institute found 90 percent of the stories didn’t mention cost at all, even though the networks urged immediate action to stop the “climate crisis.”

If journalists think today’s economy is bad, just wait until it’s gutted by the unlimited costs of climate “action.”

This is what the media aren’t telling you: Global warming policy and the economy are one and the same.

Voters must care, but not for Al Gore’s reasons. Plenty of scientists say we don’t have to fear a global warming apocalypse. The global food riots stemming from forced biofuel policy serve as a chilling clue of what we do have to fear. Instead of global warming causing food shortages, U.S. government policy has done that. Instead of rising sea levels, we must fear rising tax levels. Instead of ice caps melting away, we must fear our jobs evaporating.

Elevating the earth’s temperature to the prominence of our enemies in World War II is abominable. Ignoring what the next president could do to us is dangerous.