Post-Gazette Editorial – 10/2/06

This page was last updated on October 2, 2006.

California leads / Americans deserve such environmental progress; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; October 2, 2006.

This is the second PG editorial in less than two weeks fawning over California pollution regs. The PG isn’t alone, however. The Beaver County Times also loves California regs. Given the similarity of BCT and PG editorials, do these guys have a weekly conference call to determine editorial content? <g>

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“While the Pennsylvania Legislature and Allegheny County officials are duking it out on how to ban indoor smoking in workplaces, California has enacted a far more sweeping environmental law without anyone having a nervous breakdown.”

[RWC] Gee, could that be because the CA legislature is overwhelmingly liberal and the governor is barely a Republican? In general, libs haven’t met an environmental regulation they didn’t like.

“It’s enough to make you want to move.”

[RWC] Oops, the PG let the truth slip. Perhaps we can take a collection for bus tickets. <g>

“Last Wednesday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a major global-warming initiative that will fill the void on federal policy and possibly lead the way for other states to take action. The Bush administration’s bankrupt approach to the environment, particularly on the matter of limiting greenhouse gases, leaves leaders at the state level no alternative but to pass laws over Washington’s head.

“Some will say Gov. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, crafted the historic pact with California Democrats because it’s an election year, but we see it differently. No doubt the governor scored political points with some, but he boldly broke with -- and some would say upstaged -- his party’s president on an issue of national, indeed, global importance. That took guts, and too many politicians shrink from courageous positions, particularly in an election year.”

[RWC] “[S]ome would say?” Does anyone care to guess who “some” is?

It took “guts?” Did you notice that when a Republican – even a marginal Republican like Mr. Schwarzenegger – breaks with Republican positions it takes “guts,” but when a Republican supports Republican positions it’s “rubberstamping?” In other words, in the eyes of the PG, the only good Republican is a Democrat.

“The California law will set the nation’s first emissions caps on factories, refineries and utilities to cut the greenhouse gases that warm the earth. Between this law and the state’s tough rules limiting auto tailpipe pollution, California hopes to reduce its emissions to 1990 levels -- a 25 percent cut -- by 2020.”

[RWC] Did you notice the editorial didn’t cite the evidence to support its claim that so-called “greenhouse gases” are responsible for global warming? Contrary to what you hear from the manmade global warming camp and the mainstream media, plenty of qualified experts don’t buy into this theory.

Remember, the guys who 30 years ago sounded the alarm for manmade global cooling almost overnight switched to manmade global warming. During the mid-1970s, publications like Newsweek, Science Digest, The Christian Science Monitor, and Time published articles about the impending “ice age.”

“That’s major-league environmental leadership that deserves to be copied in the White House and Congress. It also puts in pitiful perspective the sandlot-level fight in Pennsylvania over how to clear indoor workplaces of tobacco smoke.”

[RWC] Wow, I guess the PG was really upset the Beaver County Times had a lot more anti-smoking editorials! This is the third PG anti-smoking editorial in a week.

In case you haven’t noticed, just as Beaver County Times anti-smoking editorials, PG anti-smoking editorials tend to ignore the issues of individual choice and private property rights. As I’ve written before, no one forces a nonsmoker to patronize or work for a business that allows smoking.

Why doesn’t the PG just admit it wants a complete smoking ban regardless of location? Why don’t they just push to make smoking tobacco illegal?