The Washington Post’s editorial page is at its most scolding tendentiousness when it comes to climate and energy issues. Today one of the editorial writers responsible for the tone, Stephen Stromberg, deputy opinions editor, perfects the approach in a bylined op-ed, “What sank the Senate’s climate bill.” Posing the question, “Who killed the climate bill?” he observes that Senate Democratic leaders chose not to hold a vote on the legislation and some environmentalists blame compromise-minded Senators for the bill’s demise. Stromberg concludes:
But the real answer is simpler: Too many senators have little, if any, incentives to pass climate policy that’s rational in the long term and good for the country as a whole.
Let’s explore another possibility: Too many senators have little, if any, incentives to pass climate policy that’s irrational in the long term and bad for the country as a whole.
Isn’t it possible?
Perhaps Senators studied the economic analyses that concluded the Waxman-Markey bill’s regulations, government programs and more expensive energy would destroy millions of jobs and reduce economic growth.
Senators possibly chose caution after reading accounts of the politicized climate science, e.g., the Climategate e-mail scandal.
Senators might have been reluctant to accelerate the federal government’s growing control of the private sector, believing that solutions to greenhouse gas emissions are more likely to come from new technology and efficiencies produced by the free market.
It is possible that some Americans — including Senators — believe higher energy prices are not a good thing, are not “rational.” They may even argue that point of view in good faith.
Maybe, just maybe, Senators thought passing a climate bill was a bad idea.