Talking Out of Both Sides of the Editorial Page
The Baltimore Sun editorial board is a perplexing bunch.
Concerning the failed Global Warming Solutions Act in the Maryland General Assembly, they wrote on March 25:
And any sensible legislator should agree that adopting statewide greenhouse gas policies that might prove far too costly for steelmaking and lead to the loss of more jobs than the minuscule environmental benefit could possibly justify would be worse than inhospitable.
Today April 18, regarding their view to ignore President Bush’s dopey global warming proposal they write:
But there is a serious, sensible proposal out there: a Senate bill that aims to reduce American greenhouse emissions by nearly a third by 2025…The Senate bill, sponsored by Republican John W. Warner and independent Joseph I. Lieberman, neither of whom is known for wild-eyed views, would set limits on emissions and allow companies to trade credits.
So let me get this straight, the Sun doesn’t like a state bill that would kill jobs, create energy rationing, and increase energy costs in return for minuscule environmental benefit. However, the cheer lead for a federal bill that would result in the loss of millions of jobs, create energy rationing, and cause energy costs to soar, all for minuscule environmental benefit.
Oh by the way, the only countries that achieved dramatic carbon dioxide reductions were the former Soviet republics and its Eastern European satellites. They achieved those reductions through complete economic collapse. Although they don’t realize it, this is the “low carbon future” our friends at Free State Politics would have us endure.