Report shared by Steve Thompson, Chairman of the Butte County Republican Party
Major Study Predicts Job Gains if Prop 23 Passes
Respected economist Ben Zycher recently completed this study for the Pacific Research Institute. It shows the massive numbers of jobs we stand to gain if Proposition 23 passes in November, or how many we stand to lose if it doesn’t.
Here is the forward from Zycher here:
“The California electorate next month will vote on Proposition 23, which would suspend the implementation of the state’s global warming (i.e., energy taxation) law (“AB32) until the unemployment rate reaches 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. My new paper on the employment effects of this initiative can be found in the link below.
In a nutshell: Based upon official estimates of the reduction in state energy use attendant upon implementation of AB32, Proposition 23 would increase California employment by over half a million in 2012, and over 1.3 million in 2020. (Total employment in 2009 was about 16.2 million.) Not a trivial benefit from suspending a law the original justification for which was — I am not kidding — “California has to be a leader,” a shallow rationale even by the standards of political sloganeering. The California unemployment rate stands at 12.4 percent; it will be interesting to see if the voters in this deep-blue state will choose to turn away from a regulatory juggernaut promising massive costs and, literally, no benefits”.
And here is the full report here
As most of you know I am an avid supporter of Proposition 23, and in the honor of full disclosure I also work for Assemblyman Logue who authored this proposition. I do realize that there are arguments to be made for environmental reform, but I believe this report makes clear the gravity of our situation. The earth might need environmental reforms, but California cannot afford to do it alone, nor would we have any success if we tried. Attempting to do so will live us economically crippled, and unable to enact real change, baby steps if you will, towards a cleaner environment. It is clear that Proposition 23 must be passed if our state is ever to recover from the endless national recession.
Thank you for reading. It is my honor to serve both in the Republican Party, and as a writer here at Post Scripts.
Show this to Dan Logue, Quick!!!
They went to his office and asked if he could name one job that had left because of AB 32.
He could not.
Give him this and he won’t sound so ignorant the next time he brings it up!
Quentin,
Clearly you missed the Chico LOWV debate where the local liberal press tried to put Dan Logue on the spot, and he presented very clear facts and arguments. I and other citizens witnessed this, unlike the incident you cite here. I would ask for your sources or even a news clipping but I don’t have that much faith in your intellectual honesty.
I am curious if you think Logue’s opponent would be able to answer your imaginary questions?
Your own biases are showing again. You protested Republican HQ for supporting city council candidates. I have yet to see you protest the democrats and post it on your blog for doing the same thing. Your latest blog entry focueses solely on where republican candidates get their money, but no one else. Do you even have a reason to run for city council, other than to try and harrass and disrupt the conservative vote?
You guys are a crack-up.
You doubt the thousands of scientists on the IPCC that say climate change is real, buy you fall all over yourselves at the words of some adjunct from CSU, Channel Islands? LOL!
Forget the credentials however and check out his methods. To predict how the transition to a low carbon economy will work out, he uses an historical comparison between energy use and employment in California. Where is the nexus? Maybe there could be another reason, like the global economy? Global economy goes up, energy use and employment in CA go up; global economy goes down, energy use and employment in CA goes down.
Brilliant!
Better yet Quentin, please research a article released recently that show ‘CARB’ skewed the research figures that help lead to SB32. Their figures showed a 340% dirtier air quality than was actually the case! . Also when questioned CARB officials were unable to answer why the mistake in their own study. Dirty air No! dirty tricks Yes
Mark: “You doubt the thousands of scientists on the IPCC that say climate change is real…”
There are a number of reasons to doubt:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=4016
See also here: http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf
http://gayandright.blogspot.com/2009/11/just-how-many-scientists-support-ipcc.html
http://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/ipcc-80-percent-of-its-members-where-not-climate-scientists/
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/first-ever-survey-of-ipcc-scientists-undermines-alleged-consensus-on-global-warming-poll-exposes-disagreement-and-confusion-among-united-nations-scientists-58803957.html
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907115419/life-and-science/energy-and-environment/un-ipcc-says-global-warming-big-deception.html
UN IPCC Scientist Says Global Warming Big Deception
Theres a lot more to be found about the IPCC scientists and their political opinionsbut this will suffice for now. (later I will post the John Stossel video to the front page)
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet”
Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true.
The Supreme Court, that liberal bastion of radicalism, recently ruled that CO2 could be regulated as a pollutant, because everyone knows you can have too much of a good thing.
The science is sound, unlike the economics of the researcher cited.
Mark: “Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true.”
You and Al should take that advice to heart!
“The Supreme Court, that liberal bastion of radicalism, recently ruled that CO2 could be regulated…”
I will need to look up the ruling to be certain but I believe the court did not rule on the science; it ruled on the legality or Constitutionality of the EPA making that kind of determination.
“The science is sound, unlike the economics of the researcher cited.”
And the opinions of the scientists?
U.S. Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama
Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo
Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology
David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma
Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany
I notice you don’t really comment on the fact that these respected scientists have come forward to express differing opinions…opinions that debunk the consensus lie!
Tina,
It is a difference of magnitude. You list 9 scientists, I counter with a statement from 18 scientific associations/organizations.
October 21, 2009
Dear Senator:
As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.1
If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.
We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Eco-Hysteria is so Boring.
Very few voters and I suspect the majority of those commenting have NOT taken the time to read AB 32.
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.
Keep in mind that 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.
Mark,
There aren’t 1,000s of Scientists who openly agree with the idea of Global Warming; only 7%. The rest are undecided of reject the idea.
Do some research before spouting off!!!
Mark,
This statement is also inaccurate. What the Supreme Court has ruled in EPA cases like CO2 and recently Farm Dust is, though the EPA can not conclusively prove that CO2 or Dust is harmful, the EPA has the right to regulate a substance that in its view may be harmful to the public.
The Supreme Court never ruled that CO2 or Dust is harmful or that it has any impact on climate.
Breaking News:
Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara Resigns from The American Physical Society today.
source: http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html
The reason:
“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
Mark: “It is a difference of magnitude. You list 9 scientists, I counter with a statement from 18 scientific associations/organizations.”
Mark youre being a bit disingenuous now. Either that or you have forgotten my previous posts regarding scientists in disagreementor you are in complete denial, fingers in the ears, eyes closed, singing la, la, la ,la la
In fact a letter signed by 31,487 scientists was sent to the US Congress. It read in part:
See the signatures and find more information here:
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php?run=all
Your penchant for dismissing scientists, many with PhDs, as if they were flipping Burgers for a living is making you look silly. It doesnt make a lot of sense since you seem otherwise to be quite sensible.
The word consensus was chosen to decieve by a political movement to give the impression that the science was settled…IT IS NOT! To say it is in the face of so much disagreement clearly shows there is no consensus!
John,
Thousands of scientists did the research on the IPCC 4th report. 7% wrote the summery report. Some of the “thousands” disagree with the summery. I understand the difference.
You sir, are the one that needs to “do some research.” Read the past two years of Post Scripts and you will find that I do not need any facts what so ever in oder to spout off.
Excellent find Hal!
Mark,
The issue here is very simple.
AB 32 contains provisions that need to be amended like dropping the Cap and Trade aspect. It also impacts segments of the California economy that make Green Tech look like a fly; Agriculture is an example.
Until AB 32 is amended, the best action is to vote YES on Prop. 23.
Sent my vote in today by mail so you’re wasting your breath.
Just want to thank you for this cool site!