First Name | Chuck |
---|---|
Last Name | DeVore |
Email Address | ChuckDeVore@aol.com |
Affiliation | California State Assemblyman, 2004-2010 |
Subject | Economic analysis |
Comment | The ARB makes of number of seemingly contradictory economic claims. The ARB states that its cap-and-trade regulations will reduce the growth rate of the California economy from 2.4 percent to 2.3 percent. At the same time, the ARB claims that the regulations under consideration will “not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting businesses, and little or no impact on the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states.” And that, “…impacts on long-term projected growth rates in personal income and employment are similarly small.” And that, “Regulated businesses may face additional indirect costs due to increased energy and input prices, and some businesses might be impacted based on the compliance path they choose to meet their obligations under the proposed regulation.” And that, the “proposed regulatory action would not eliminate existing businesses within the State of California, but would affect the creation of new businesses or the expansion of existing businesses currently doing business in California. The proposed regulatory action would not eliminate jobs within the State of California, but would affect the creation of jobs within California.” It strains credulity to believe that California can act to completely reorder the energy sector and only slightly reduce economic growth, slightly increase prices and end up with more jobs, not less. Assuming this to be the case, does that mean that the ARB projects more lower paying jobs and relatively less higher paying jobs as the result of its actions? How else can a reduction of economic growth be explained as part of the ARB analysis? Lastly, the ARB in its economic analysis states that the analysis did “…not consider the avoided costs of inaction. The potential effects of climate change that are expected to occur in California, such as increased water scarcity, reduced crop yield, sea level rise, and increased incidence of wildfires, could cause severe economic impacts.” Given that California’s cap-and-trade efforts, when viewed in the global context of a developing China and India, is likely to provide, at most, a day or two’s reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (and this is assuming that leakage doesn’t accelerate, as more economic activity that once occurred in California is off-shored to coal-fired China), how can this statement even be seriously countenanced when, in fact, there will be no significant global GHG emissions reduction as a result of the ARB’s actions? Lastly, over the past 150 years, California has experienced “increased water scarcity, reduced crop yield, sea level rise, and increased incidence of wildfires” with three of the four directly attributable to environmental policies that have limited water storage and conveyance (increased water scarcity), cut flows of water to farms (reduced crop yield), and reduced timber harvesting and forest fuel management (increased incidence of wildfires) – the one foot rise in sea level over the past 150 years being the sole impact not caused by environmental policy, and certainly not an impact anyone in California has seen as particularly difficult in which to adapt. |
Attachment | |
Original File Name | |
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted | 2010-12-15 09:26:23 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-5594.