The New York Times Wednesday editorial on Lieberman-Warner, which Jim Manzi discusses below, really is remarkable. Considering the possible economic impact of this legislation, you’d think the paper of record might spend a bit of time analyzing its costs and benefits. But all we get is the vague assurance that “studies” — and “serious” ones at that — make it clear that the bill is an economic winner.

Manzi has argued otherwise pretty forcefully — here for instance. And that’s when you assume favorable performance on carbon reductions, which — as Chris Horner has pointed out in this space – the EU’s failure at reducing emissions belies.

We’re never going to get the “perfectly implemented, globally harmonized carbon tax” that would deliver that razor-thin 0.2 percent benefit estimated by Yale’s William Nordhaus. A perfectly implemented government-administered system is a contradiction in terms. And it’s become increasingly clear that China and India have no intention of burdening themselves with draconian emissions-reduction measures — so the global harmonization of a carbon scheme is equally fantastical. As it turns out, the costs of “acting now” are relatively steep, while inaction looks like the most economically beneficial course — for some 40-odd years, at least.

Perhaps the Times editors were simply following their own advice, making sure “that the economics of this debate are framed in a positive way.” But is the Gray Lady’s sunnily vague endorsement enough of a reason to vote for Lieberman-Warner?