Clever Legislative Conceits
From the Sun’s Bay and Environment blog on the imminent passage of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act.
“What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander,” O’Donnell argued, saying that other segments of society and the economy would be forced to pay for manufacturers’ exemption if greenhouse gas regulations raise electricity costs. It was his way, he said, of making the point that the bill was going to drive up energy costs for everyone.
But Del. Brian McHale, a Baltimore Democrat supporting the bill, disputed O’Donnell’s assertions that energy costs would rise. He said manufacturers produced only a small share of the greenhouse gases, and they were exempted to spare them from being put at a competitive disadvantage with factories in other states lacking greenhouse gas regulations.
The amendment failed, 32-103. A second amendment also failed that would have required annual reporting on how efforts to reduce greenhouse gases are affecting energy costs, jobs and property rights.
Note that second amendment calling for annual reporting on how GHG reduction affects energy costs, jobs etc… If the bill does not affect energy costs as Delegate McHale (falsely) claims then he should have no objection to allowing for reporting, which would presumably prove his assertion. One would think
Of course, McHale is dead wrong, the bill will jack up energy costs, specifically electricity.
What’s more McHale, and the rest of the bill’s supporters know they are wrong, hence their vote against the reporting which would reveal the true economic impact of the bill.