Now, just because something  is fashionable, that doesn't mean it's right. Unfortunately, many  government leaders these days don't seem to grasp that fact. A bill  currently in the California Assembly would make it a rule that consumer  products would have to be labeled according to the amount of greenhouse  gases used to create said product. For an already ailing business community,  this is a terrible idea.

The current rage for all things  green, may, ironically, cause a serious setback in the amount of green  that businesses, and by extension, government, would see. When business  is bad, there are fewer dollars from which to tax.

AB 19 concerns "Greenhouse  gas emissions: consumer product labeling," and is a bad bill for a number of reasons. The legislation, which is still in  committee, would authorize the Carbon Labeling Act of 2009, which supposedly  would be a voluntary program for businesses. What exactly is the point  of a business volunteering to disclose approximately how much carbon  dioxide was created when making a product? You've got us there.

AB 19 was introduced in December  2008 by Assemblymember Ira Ruskin, and was amended earlier this month  on May 4. The bill itself bases its power on the California Global Warming  Solutions Act of 2006, which "designates the State Air Resources Board  as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of  emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming in  order to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases."

If passed, AB 19 would usher  in the "Carbon Labeling Act of 2009," which would "require the  state board to develop and implement a program for the voluntary assessment,  verification, and standardized labeling of the carbon footprint, as  defined, of consumer products sold in this state."

Bills such as AB 19 are frivolous  and a waste of taxpayer's time. State leaders  are paid to enact reasonable and helpful legislation and to oversee  a responsible and useful government apparatus, not create further regulations  to punish businesses using flimsy reasoning.

As the recent pushback  against climate change legislation has proven, some citizens (and even  representatives, local and federal) are no longer buying the blanket  explanation that all climate change is from man-made evil. With fluctuating  temperature, both record highs AND lows, and flimsy data to support  the foregone conclusion of global climate change, it begs the question:  why are legislators focusing on punishing citizens for working and creating  goods, when no one really knows exactly where carbon footprints are  stepping?

A darker question bubbles beneath  the surface, however: once businesses are allowed to be legislated and  punished for alleged anti-environment byproducts, at what point are  individual citizens targeted as well? If this legislation is passed,  individuals in the business community will be punished, if not forced  straightaway into falsifying "carbon footprint" information and  misleading the public on an already frivolous issue. Once all state  leaders have taken a course in basic environmental science and can thoroughly  explain why they're against what is viewed as "evil" carbon, then  and only then should they be legislating on such complex issues.