Citizens of the Golden State get nervous about carbon rationing plans made in flusher times.When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law mandating a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gases, California’s economy was in a very different place. It was 2006. Unemployment was 4.5 percent. Thanks to inflated home values, residents felt rich. Today 12.5 percent of Californians are out of work, the government is in a budgetary meltdown, and a movement is brewing to stop those carbon cuts from kicking in.
The Global Warming Solutions Act, a.k.a. AB 32, seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a mix of policies, including a cap-and-trade carbon market, fuel efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, a requirement that 33 percent of the state’s energy be produced from renewable sources, a low-carbon fuel standard for vehicles, and zoning changes to discourage automobile travel.
AB 32’s proponents say it will create a plethora of new “green jobs.” Cynthia Verdugo-Peralta, founder of VPC Energy and of Strategic Energy, Environmental & Transportation Alternatives, recently declared, “When it comes to job growth, there is substantial, irrefutable evidence that growing more efficient and greener will create jobs, not kill them.” That, she explained, is “why I am heartened that CARB’s new economic analysis reaffirms the benefits of implementing California’s Global Warming Solutions Act.”
Verdugo-Peralta was referring to a March report from the California Air Resources Board, the agency that will oversee carbon rationing. Its analysis finds that implementing emission cuts will increase the price of electricity by up to 20 percent, the price of natural gas by 13 percent to 76 percent, and the price of gasoline by 6 percent to 47 percent.
Though it uses the same data, a competing analysis by the global consulting firm Charles River Associates finds the costs of carbon rationing are likely to be higher. This is primarily because measures such as the requirement that 33 percent of California’s electricity come from renewable sources will boost overall costs. By 2020, Charles River Associates estimates, the 2006 law will increase California’s electricity prices by 11 percent to 32 percent, while gasoline and diesel prices will rise by 14 percent to 51 percent.
The CARB best-case analysis estimates that the new mandates and carbon market will increase employment slightly by 2020 and that per capita income will rise by about $30 per person, by 2020. In its worst-case scenario, incomes would be reduced by about $300 per capita.
By contrast, the Charles River analysis finds that implementing AB 32 will reduce incomes by $200 to $500 per person by 2020.
The cost differences between the two analyses arise largely from how they treat the mandates. The CARB report suggests that the higher energy prices will be completely offset by conservation and energy efficiency requirements embedded in the law because they will force Californians to reduce the amount of electricity and fuel they use. The Charles River study concludes that the costs of implementing those mandates more than outweigh their benefits.
Read the rest here, the article was written before the June election and Prop 23 was put on the ballot.
In the mean time re-read my highlighted text above. We will forced to conserve by higher prices in fuel and energy. Now there is a receipt for economic development in our rural community. As the price of fuel goes up, the number of tourist goes down. When our local economy is taking hits left and right one of the brighter spots was the day trippers, now CARB wants to drive up the price of fuel, all to solve a problem that does not exist. There has not been any significant global warming since about 2000, and the sun is remaining quiet with few sunspots, leading to some long term cooling according to historical president. CARB is going to destroy our economy to save the planet from global warming, while Mother Nature is turning down the thermostat.
