by Jack Lee
In order to avoid being called biased or partisan I want to present the State of California’s own election analysis to show what AB 23 will and will not do. If you take the time to actually read this information (most liberals won’t) you will see that over 50% of what AB 32 the green house gas reduction bill attempts to implement… will still be enforced through other state laws no matter what the outcome of AB23 or AB32..
Now the facts from the impartial analysis:
“A number of studies have considered the economic impacts of the Scoping Plan implementation in 2020–the year when AB 32’s GHG emission reduction target is to be met. Those studies that have looked at the economic impacts from a relatively broad perspective have, for the most part, found that there will be some modest reduction in California’s gross state product, a comprehensive measure of economic activity for the state.
These findings reflect how such things as more expensive energy, new investment requirements, and costs of regulatory compliance combine to increase the costs of producing materials, goods, and services that consumers and businesses buy. Given all of the uncertainties involved, however, the net economic impact of the Scoping Plan (how it would be implemented) remains a matter of debate.
A number of studies have considered the economic impacts of the Scoping Plan implementation in 2020–the year when AB 32’s GHG emission reduction target is to be met. Those studies that have looked at the economic impacts from a relatively broad perspective have, for the most part, found that there will be some modest reduction in California’s gross state product, a comprehensive measure of economic activity for the state. These findings reflect how such things as more expensive energy, new investment requirements, and costs of regulatory compliance combine to increase the costs of producing materials, goods, and services that consumers and businesses buy. Given all of the uncertainties involved, however, the net economic impact of the Scoping Plan remains a matter of debate.
It shows that, since 1970, the state has had three periods (each about ten quarters long) when the unemployment rate was at or below 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters or more. The unemployment rate in California for the first two quarters of 2010 was above 12 percent. Economic forecasts for the next five years have the state’s unemployment rate remaining above 8 percent. Given these factors, it appears likely that AB 32 would remain suspended for many years.
The proposed cap-and-trade regulation discussed above. The “low carbon fuel standard” regulation that requires providers of transportation fuel in California (such as refiners and importers) to change the mix of fuels to lower GHG emissions. The proposed ARB regulation that is intended to require privately and publicly owned utilities and others who sell electricity to obtain at least 33 percent of their supply from “renewable” sources, such as solar or wind power, by 2020. (The current requirement that 20 percent of the electricity obtained by privately owned utilities come from renewable sources by 2010 would not be suspended by this proposition.) The fee to recover state agency costs of administering AB 32.
Much Regulation in the Scoping Plan Would Likely Continue. Many current activities related to addressing climate change and reducing GHG emissions would probably not be suspended by this proposition. That is because certain Scoping Plan regulations implement laws other than AB 32. The regulations that would likely move forward, for example, include:
- New vehicle emission standards for cars and smaller trucks.
- A program to encourage homeowners to install solar panels on their roofs.
- Land-use policies to promote less reliance on vehicle use.
- Building and appliance energy efficiency requirements.
We estimate that more than one-half of the emission reductions from implementing the Scoping Plan would come because of laws enacted separately from AB 32.”
Yes on 23 saves jobs, prevents energy tax increases, and helps families, while preserving California’s clean air and water laws. California can’t afford self-imposed energy costs that don’t reduce global warming. 2.3 million Californians are unemployed; Proposition 23 will save over a million jobs that would be otherwise be destroyed.
The NO on prop 23 people want you to think that this initiative is all about 3 oil companies from Texas,. When you look at the long list of supporters you get a different picture and here’s just a partial list of other supporters: CONCERNED AMERICANS FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT SPONSORED BY THE CALIFORNIA TRUCKING ASSOCIATION, they gave $50,000.
BERRY PETROLEUM COMPANY MONETARY BAKERSFIELD gave $25,000.
NAFTEX OPERATING CO. in L.A. gave $5000. MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION gave $30000, NO NEW TAXES, A PROJECT OF THE HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION $86.50, NO NEW TAXES, A PROJECT OF THE HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION Gave $100,001, NO NEW TAXES, A PROJECT OF THE HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION gave $177.66, NO NEW TAXES, A PROJECT OF THE HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION of Los Angeles gave $522, CAL. STATE PIPE TRADES COUNCIL PAC gave $25,000, CAL. AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES ISSUES FUND gve $10,000, BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., gave $3000, TOWER ENERGY GROUP
In Torrance, Ca., gave $100,000, CAL. CITRUS MUTUAL, Exeter, CA., $1500, TOTAL SAFETY U.S., gave $10,000, CONSERVATIVE OPPORTUNITY PAC from Willows, Ca., gave $2760, CAL. CLUTCH & GEAR, INC. Gasve $250, DR. CURTIS R. CARLSON gave $5000, SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL CO. DBA TOTAL ENERGY PRODUCTS, Orange, Ca., gave $50,000, CALIFORNIA DRUG & ALCOHOL TESTING ALLIANCE gave $1000, LUMBER ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA & NEVADA PAC gave $5000,
Thanks, Good Read!
You’re right, very few voters have taken the time to read AB 32 and the Big Business spin related to Prop 23 is absurd.
AB 32 was enacted before the facts were known. It simply needs to strip out the Cap and Trade and reliance on GHG assumptions and its potentially a piece of leadership legislation for other states. Sustainability, Clean Energy, and Stewardship are great goals but not at the expense of Common Sense.
AB 32 needs to be suspended and or immediately amended to eliminate the Cap and Trade provisions 70% of America Opposes, eliminate the unnecessary fee based oversight, eliminate the reliance on GHG assumptions which are proving to be false, correct the vague language that will introduce Environmental Red Tape that will do more damage than good, and make non-governmental agencies like CARB accountable to the taxpayer.
Green Tech is a fly on the elephant that is California Agriculture. California Agriculture will be impacted by AB 32 in its current form and the EPA nonsense related to CO2 and, this one is really off the wall, Regulating Farm Dust.
AB 32 needs to be amended or Voting YES on Prop 23 makes the most sense.
excerpt from the approved 2008 California
Climate Change Scoping Plan
Key elements of Californias recommendations for reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 include:
Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards;
Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent;
Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system;
Establishing targets for transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets;
Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including Californias clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard;
Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the States long term commitment to AB 32 implementation.
California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state’s clean-air standards, says the San Francisco Chronicle.
The pollution estimate in question was too high — by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards.
The estimate was a key part in the creation of a regulation adopted by the Air Resources Board in 2007, a rule that forces businesses to cut diesel emissions by replacing or making costly upgrades to heavy-duty, diesel-fueled off-road vehicles used in construction and other industries.
The staff of the powerful and widely respected Air Resources Board said the overestimate is largely due to the board calculating emissions before the economy slumped, which halted the use of many of the 150,000 diesel-exhaust-spewing vehicles in California. Independent researchers, however, found huge overestimates in the air board’s work on diesel emissions and attributed the flawed work to a faulty method of calculation — not the economic downturn.
The overestimate, which comes after another bad calculation by the air board on diesel-related deaths that made headlines in 2009, prompted the board to suspend the regulation this year while officials decided whether to weaken the rule.
Source: Wyatt Buchanan, “Overestimate Fueled State’s Landmark Diesel Law,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 8, 2010.
These are not my opinions, but a ‘copied and pasted’ recently released report and news article, just sharing this with these who would rather know facts vs some spin.
Thanks Harold, you are right on the mark with this. Appreciate you weighing in, this is going to be a tough one to get passed.
“It simply needs to strip out the Cap and Trade and reliance on GHG assumptions and its potentially a piece of leadership legislation for other states. ”
John, do you suggest a carbon tax instead of cap and trade? If not, what reduction mechanism do you favor?
Harold, CARB did not do the studies on greenhouse gas production. I hope you are not trying to make a connection.
And Jack, you paste:
Much Regulation in the Scoping Plan Would Likely Continue. Many current activities related to addressing climate change and reducing GHG emissions would probably not be suspended by this proposition. That is because certain Scoping Plan regulations implement laws other than AB 32. The regulations that would likely move forward, for example, include:
New vehicle emission standards for cars and smaller trucks.
A program to encourage homeowners to install solar panels on their roofs.
Land-use policies to promote less reliance on vehicle use.
Building and appliance energy efficiency requirements.
Yet, they regulation outside AB 32 are the ones you complain about. What gets stripped is only the big polluter sections.
Feel duped yet?
Marks question.’Harold, CARB did not do the studies on greenhouse gas production. I hope you are not trying to make a connection.’ Quote per Mark
Hal replies, Mark, If you read the article again you might notice my comment at the bottom
‘These are not my opinions, but a ‘copied and pasted’ recently released report and news article, just sharing this with these who would rather know facts vs some spin.’
However now that you mention it CARB had to due the miscalculations or else they would not have made this disclaimer per the article.
‘The staff of the powerful and widely respected Air Resources Board said the overestimate is largely due to the board calculating emissions before the economy slumped, which halted the use of many of the 150,000 diesel-exhaust-spewing vehicles in California. Independent researchers, however, found huge overestimates in the air board’s work on diesel emissions and attributed the flawed work to a faulty method of calculation — not the economic downturn.
So I took it to mean that the 340% overage (miscalculation) is directly due to CARB and their lack of “correctly connecting” with the research data supplied them. Now that you brought it up, I will make that connection!