The Chronicle editorial board puts the "onus" for defeat of the "Climate Security Act" on "Republican Senate leadership and its followers", touting the need to act on global warming.  Yet nowhere in the editorial, nor in the bill itself, is any explanation of exactly what impact on climate change passage of this bill and establishment of a "cap-and-trade" system would have.

 

Indeed, while the writers of this column encourage voters to "support effective and responsible legislation to combat global warming", there is never a mention of how effective the bill would be at doing so.  Rather, the only real impact statement of the bill states that "the measure aims at stabilizing the carbon content in the atmosphere at 488 parts per million, higher than the 350 ppm many climatologists have endorsed as necessary" — this is considered "effective" and "responsible"?  On what basis, and at what price?

 

Typically, before undertaking a complex and expensive endeavor, an individual or business does a detailed cost-benefit analysis to determine the validity of the endeavor.  No such analysis is provided by proponents of this bill.  Instead, we are given platitudes about the "need to act" and general statements that the cost of not implementing cap-and-trade "will be far greater".  This seems like flimsy justification for such a complex regulation of the marketplace and increase in the cost of goods and services for American families.