NewsBusters has been reporting for the last several years that in the midst of the media's fascination with global warming alarmism, the financial ramifications of proposed solutions to this potentially nonexistent problem have been almost universally ignored.

On Tuesday, the Washington Post boldly broke with such disingenuousness by publishing a shocking front page article entitled "Climate is a Risky Issue for Democrats."

In reality, you couldn't completely tell just how controversial this piece was from the opening paragraph, but it ended up being a clever -- albeit delicate -- foreshadowing of seriously inconvenient truths that folks like Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his media sycophants have been immorally withholding from the public (emphasis added throughout):

All of the leading Democratic contenders for the presidency are committed to a set of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that would change the way Americans light their homes, fuel their automobiles and do their jobs, costing billions of dollars in the short term but potentially, the candidates say, saving even more in the decades to follow.

After a brief overview of John Edwards' proposals, the Post correctly opined:

The strong medicine Edwards and his fellow candidates are selling -- an 80 percent cut in greenhouse gases from 1990s levels by 2050 -- tracks with a plan espoused by scientists. But it is a plan that will require a wholesale transformation of the nation's economy and society.

[...]

According to energy expert Tracy Terry's analysis of a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, under the scenario of an 80 percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, by 2015 Americans could be paying 30 percent more for natural gas in their homes and even more for electricity. At the same time, the cost of coal could quadruple and crude oil prices could rise by an additional $24 a barrel.

Shocking admission, wouldn't you agree? Just as surprising was the honest assessment of the political side of this issue, especially one year away from Election Day:

Democrats' boldness, however, could carry a political price. The eventual GOP presidential nominee is almost certain to attack Democrats over the huge costs associated with limiting emissions. "They will come at this hard," said John Podesta, who heads the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, and sees an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases as necessary.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who has just co-written a book on the environment called "A Contract With the Earth," said either party could face serious consequences if they mishandle the question of climate change. A Democrat running on "litigation and regulation" could alienate voters, he said in an interview. "You can just calculate the costs," Gingrich said.

[...]

Edward Parson, a University of Michigan law professor who worked in the Office of Science and Technology Policy under President Bill Clinton, said that to reach the 80 percent goal by 2050, Americans would have to capture and store carbon emissions from every power plant in the country. "A world that gets to that big a reduction in greenhouse gases is a world where you're paying more for energy," he said.

No matter how you slice it, every so-called solution to eradicating the left's current bogeyman does indeed represent a potentially huge tax hike on the populace, and an unquestionably regressive one that has a greater impact as you go down the income ladder.

This indeed is why media have been eschewing this more practical and real side of the debate and, instead, focusing on the hysteria.

Frankly, it's quite refreshing to see such candor from the Post, especially on its front page.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.