CARB Before Horse

IBD Editorials ^ | February 7, 2011 | Staff

[Kaslin]

States: A court has tentatively ruled against California's cap-and-trade law because alternatives were not considered. But then, neither were climate facts or the economic impact.

There's a delicious irony in the ruling by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ernest Goldsmith barring the California Air Resources Board (CARB) from implementing AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

In the opinion of the court, CARB failed to complete the required environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act because it did not adequately analyze the legislation to see if there are better ways to get the job done.

One of the plaintiffs in the case is the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, a group of rabid environmentalists who backed the passage of AB32.

Claiming to seek environmental justice for minorities, the center sued on the grounds that CARB's implementation plan was too friendly to business.

According to the ruling, the Air Resources Board plan "seeks to create a fait accompli by premature establishment of a cap-and-trade program before alternative (sic) can be exposed to public comment and properly evaluated by the ARB itself."

Now businesses, consumers, taxpayers and others adversely affected by the law presumably will have yet another opportunity to expose AB32 as an ineffective and draconian attempt to repeal the Industrial Revolution, at least at the state level, and push California even closer to the economic precipice.

[keat]

There's a delicious irony...

Irony indeed. Only in California would a law like this get suspended because it might possibly not be causing enough harm to the economy. Nice.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

A judge is standing in the way of a draconian law?

Who cares?

Implement it anyway.

That's the way Obama does it.

[raptor22]

Ping

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx raptor22 !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !