I congratulate the editors for their parody of a guest editorial, in which they presented a caricature, M. Reynolds (Oct. 20), a lobbyist who, if he existed, should seek another line of work, writing on “clean power” and the need to “price carbon,” attributing recent hurricanes and California fires to climate change and carbon emissions.
This was cleverly done, mocking environmentalists and their faulty reasoning and poor science, when no real scientists attribute recent events to such causes. We all know these are scare tactics, meant to frighten children and those who cannot or will not think. Pretending to advocate to prevent “climate change,” the article advocates more government and more taxes.
Raising taxes and more government are Democrats’ and “environmentalists’” answer to every problem. When Congress “fails to act,” that means there is no consensus — Congress has decided not to do something. When only 60 Members support a cause, that means there is no real support in a House of 435 Members (not even a third of the 194 Democrats). Fourteen percent of the House of Representatives is nothing.
When Obama imposed carbon taxes by regulation because Congress “failed to act,” that was still another example of unconstitutional lawmaking by regulation because, even in a Democratic Party-controlled Congress, Obama could not find sufficient support for his policies, which the Trump administration is now rescinding.
How clever to say that the Obama Clean Power Plan (his “legacy” for which he could not even find support in his own party) was “gutted” when it never found more than minor support, and never has been a rational or good policy.
Neither the Kyoto Protocol nor the Paris Climate Accord even won support in Congress, in part because everyone knows they will harm the U.S. without affecting the climate. How clever to call something “bipartisan” when it has no real support in either party.
The only “bipartisan” aspect was that both parties rejected them and Obama’s rules. Carbon pricing is an idea only supported by a very few. Most editorials make valid arguments for this or that position. The Capital Press was clever to mock climate change and carbon taxes by such a caricature of reasoning and evidence.
Alan L. Gallagher