A reader writes to note the following:

This is a letter that Diane Feinstein sends out to anyone in her district concerned about the increased cost of electricity and potential job loss if cap and trade becomes a law. As a drug rep, I’ve seen some pretty slipshod work come out of Tufts. Can’t say I’m totally surprised by this.
Dear Sir: Thank you for writing to me to express your opposition to establishing a cap-and-trade system to curb greenhouse gas emissions. I appreciate the time you took to write, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. I understand that you are concerned that a cap-and-trade system could result in the loss of American jobs and increase energy costs. I believe, however, that the cost of failing to act to address climate change far exceeds the cost of taking the necessary steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and make a permanent shift towards clean, renewable energy and energy efficient technologies. A recent study by researchers at Tufts University found that inaction could cost the United States economy as much as 3.6 percent of the gross domestic product, or $3.8 trillion annually, by 2100. Please know that I appreciate hearing your concerns, and I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue working in the Senate to advance measures that address climate change, invest in our economy and increase our energy security. Again, thank you for writing. If you have further questions or comments, please contact my office in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841. Best regards. Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein United States Senator

Ignore for the moment whatever a Tufts study might say to focus instead on what Sen. Feinstein did not say. Specifically note her failure to add context to her claim of having addressed the comparative costs of prescribed “action” and this alleged cost of “inaction” — whatever “inaction” is, given that wealthier societies are constantly enhancing their adaptive capacity and becoming less emissions-intensive.

This failure to quantify her analysis is at best disingenuous, given the overwhelming . . . well, consensus that the costs of these schemes vastly outweigh the alleged cost of “climate change” under scenarios predicted by the proven-to-be-alarmist-and-wrong models. For example, Al Gore’s proposals, according to Yale University’s William Nordhaus, would ding the world a whopping $44 trillion annually — twice Nordhaus’ estimates of the cost of “global warming,” which is itself subject to question, regardless of methodology (because the 1 degree warming of the 20th century was accompanied, or in “trade off” for, unprecedented increases in wealth, life expectancy, crop yields, health, and so on — all of which improvements in human welfare were and are made possible by the fossil fuels that these emissions policies are designed to make less available).

Yet all proposed schemes are all pain, no gain. It seems hard to believe that Sen. Feinstein has not been informed that no one claims that Waxman-Markey would, under any set of assumptions, qualify as “climate action” — whether we act “now” or otherwise. Heck, her fellow Dems — ranging from centrist-ish Evan Bayh (in his constituent mail) to fellow traveler John Kerry, in his recent editorial — admit that anything we do is “all for naught” considering that India, China, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico, Indonesia and other major emitters are telling us to go pound sand.

California is welcome to and deserves all of the Moonbattery it can vote for. But stop imposing your policies on the rest of us.