Calls to adopt Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives (RGGIs), no matter where that happens, are massively ill-advised for three elemental reasons:

First, when the calls are to regulate "carbon emissions," that in itself is disingenuous. Carbon is soot, carbon is the graphite in pencils, pure carbon is/are diamonds. The actual calls are to reduce emissions of carbon DIOXIDE, a colorless, odorless, and largely naturally occurring gas, one that commercial greenhouse growers actually pump into their buildings to make their flowers, shrubs and tree saplings grow bigger, faster, stronger. This applies outdoors as well, thus we need more CO2, not less, to prompt more crop growth and tree growth worldwide.

Second, the calls claim the science of catastrophic man-caused global warming is settled, proven by a "scientific consensus" on the matter — that, despite nobody being able to detail when the debated was unsettled or what exactly settled it. Never in the history of the Scientific Method has any science conclusion been validated by "consensus," a.k.a. a "show of hands." The truth is, no such debate ever happened anywhere, and news outlets such as the partly public-funded PBS NewsHour has completely excluded skeptic climate scientists from telling its viewers about the other side of the issue, an exclusion seen from the present time all the way back to the NewsHour's earliest available online broadcast transcripts in 1996.

Third, the calls beseech all to ignore skeptic climate scientists assessments (and related expert speakers' viewpoints) because such skeptics are "liars-for-hire working on behalf of the fossil fuel industry to deceive the public about the settled science." Even after 30+ years of that accusation being pushed, the accusers do not have one single bit of evidence (full context document scans, undercover video/audio transcripts, leaked emails, money-transfer receipts, etc.) proving skeptic scientists were paid to fabricate demonstratively false science papers, reports, assessments or viewpoints — material that could stand up in a courtroom evidentiary hearing proving a pay-for-performance arrangement exists between those skeptics and industry executives.

The idea of catastrophic man-caused global warming stands on two pillars, "settled science" and "crooked skeptics." When the latter is totally devoid of evidence to prove it true, the former collapses by default, since policymakers, journalists, and the greater public then has no excuse to dismiss the detailed climate assessments from skeptic scientists/experts out-of-hand.