Smoggy skies over the downtown Los Angeles skyline, as seen from Griffith Park. (AP Photo/Ric Francis/FILE)
Global warming law will boost California economy, study finds
But business groups are still concerned about the costs of the landmark emission caps.
By Daniel B. Wood | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor/ September 18, 2008 edition
Reporter Dan Wood discusses study findings on a California law designed to cap greenhouse gases.
Reporter Dan Wood
Los Angeles
When California made global headlines two years ago for a landmark law requiring a 25 percent cut in industrial greenhouse gases by 2020, some critics said the environmental advantages would be symbolic and net job losses significant.
Now, two studies released this week by the California Air Resources Board, the state body charged with overseeing the project, claim to show that implementing the emission-cutting measures under the pioneering law would actually benefit California’s economy and public health.
The economic analysis says implementing the regulations will increase economic production by $27 billion, overall gross state product by $4 billion, overall personal income by $14 billion, and per capita income by $200.
And the public health analysis concludes that programs under AB32 – also known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 – will help eliminate 300 premature deaths statewide, avoid almost 9,000 incidents of asthma and lower respiratory symptoms, and avoid 53,000 workdays lost to illness.
“The facts are in. These reports support the conclusion that guiding California toward a clean energy future with reduced dependence on fossil fuels will grow our economy, improve public health, protect the environment, and create a more secure future built on clean and sustainable technologies,” said ARB chairman Mary Nichols on Wednesday.
The so-called Scoping Plan, which combines market-based regulatory approaches, other regulations, voluntary measures, and fees, will go to the board for adoption in November. Meanwhile, the agency is seeking public comment.
Key environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, and Natural Resources Defense Council generally agree with the findings, as do scientific bodies such as the Union of Concerned Scientists.
But business groups are skeptical. The California Manufacturers and Technology Association fears the economic models used in the studies could be faulty. The fiscal analysis ignores near-term costs and doesn’t account for the price of gas if it continues to go up, they say.
“This analysis is long on wishful thinking but short on economic reality,” says Dorothy Rothrock, spokeswoman for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association and co-chair of the AB32 Implementation Group, a 160-plus-member coalition dedicated to cost-effective execution of the climate-change law.
“There is no evaluation of the real-time costs that California businesses and consumers will pay up front,” she says. The analysis looked at costs and benefits over the plan’s 10-year time frame, she notes, without providing a year-by-year cash flow projection.
“Government can get away with deficit spending, but in the real world, families and businesses have to pay their bills every month or there are severe consequences,” says Shelly Sullivan, executive director of the AB32 Implementation Group. “We are looking at billions in increased electricity, natural gas, gasoline and fuel prices; billions in new carbon fees and water fees; higher building costs, rents and mortgages…. CARB assumes we can afford to pay for all this and wait for savings 12 years from now.”
Even those who broadly agree with the reports’ conclusions have caveats. The Union of Concerned Scientists’ Chris Bush says “the economic models they used did not proceed as smoothly as CARB hoped.” Sierra Club’s Bill Magavern worries that estimates of the price of gas – at $3.67 per gallon – could change and dramatically modify the report’s conclusions.
But neither go as far as Ms. Sullivan and Ms. Rothrock who worry that increased regulation and costs will result in business flight to other states or countries where less stringent laws would ensure an overall increase in pollution.
“Ironically, a California business could relocate to India or China where the mix of energy consumption includes coal which would pollute the atmosphere worse than if they stayed in California,” says Rothrock. The state’s industries are among the cleanest in the world because of strict regulations, she says.
Higher taxes, fuel and labor costs already means that doing business in California costs more than elsewhere in the US.
( More stories )
Comments
2. Mike | 09.19.08
All I can say is “good luck” to the people of California if they buy into this fraudulent study released by their own government… This would be hilariously funny, if it weren’t so sad…
First of all, greenhouse gas emissions of CO2 do NOT cause asthma and lower respiratory symptoms. More CO2 in the air does NOT cause premature deaths and it certainly does not cause lost workdays due to illness.
Secondly, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes dangerous global warming. In fact, the evidence we do have, based on almost 30 years of satellite data, is that the average temperature of the Earth today is virtually the same as it was about 30 years ago. This debate is over and it’s clear that greenhouse CO2 does not cause dangerous global warming.
The flawed predictions of the global warming computer models that the IPCC relied upon even in their latest Ireport (AR4-2007) are completely obliterated by the facts, which are indisputably displayed on this chart of reality — http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ipccchart.jpg .kkkkkkkkkkkkkokiiiiiiiiiii0
For the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with the legend, the blue line represents the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) satellite data and the green line (HadCRUT) represents the U.K. Hadley Center measurements of combined land and sea surface temperatures. These two measures represent reality. All the rest of the lines represent the predictions of computer models used by the IPCC to support their claims of human-caused global warming.
As a result of this unforeseen cooling trend, the entire purpose of this law (to cut greenhouse gases for the purpose of reducing global warming) makes no sense given today’s scientific reality.
3. Tim | 09.20.08
The green house / global warming theory was first proposed in the 1890’s. But in wasn’t until the early 1908’s that were computers powerful enough to run global climate models. Those first models predicted that increases in green house gasses in the atmosphere would increase the temperature and change the rainfall / weather patterns around the world. However the precise changes would vary from place to place around the globe. Unforunately we can’t conduct an experiment to test the theory, unlike much simpler scientific theories. The only way to test a systems theory like this is the see if what was predicted to happen over time actually does happen. We are now a quarter of a centuary down the track from when those first global weather model prediction. What has happened???
The early models have not been precisely accurate (nor will the current models be), but all the predicted changes have occured. We have seen dramatic reductions in artic ice coverage, increase in floods, increases in hurricane intensity, reductions in rainfall and increases in droughts in those parts of the planet that were predicted by the early models. The farming region I live in (Geraldton, West Australia) is unforunately one of the regions of the world that has had the largest reduction in rainfall. The reductions in rainfall and droughts this decade are extreme, completely unprecedent and so far removed from last century that there is almost no chance this is just a ‘dry spell’. Unless we can radically change our farming systems in a very short time (there is hope!!) our agriculture will collapse and one of the worlds most reliable ‘grain bowls’ will be abandoned.
Unfortunaley the main inaccuracy in the early climate models has been that the changes to weather patterns around the globe have occured much faster than predicted. So from a scientific perspective the global warming theory holds, and would be reckless in the extreme to ignore it.
The problem is that if the climate change is human induced, only changes in human behaviour can prevent it getting worse. That means we must all collectively accept responsibility for the problem, and therefore take personal actions to prevent further disastrous changes to our climate. Only the sckeptics have the luxury of not re-assessing there own actions and lifestyle. Just as the spoilt brat in the school yard won’t pick up the rubbish because it probably / possibly wasn’t his.
4. Mike | 09.22.08
Tim… Nice comments… Can you support any of your claims with references to scientific data?
I’m sorry to hear about your current weather situation and I hope it gets better soon. In reality, droughts and floods did not just begin in the 1980s. They have naturally occurred throughout time, picking different places and times quite randomly. Your particular claim about hurricane intensity was refuted in 2007.
“The atmosphere above the major hurricane formation and intensification region in the Atlantic ocean continues to evolve in a manner that is virtually opposite to the way it is projected to evolve by climate models run with increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic emissions. This fact suggests that the role played by natural variability in the recent upswing in hurricane activity in the Atlantic Ocean (including storms striking the U. S. coastline) is likely large and significant. A just-published paper further adds to this evidence.”
See http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/04/19/hurricaneglobal-warming-link-weakens-further-not-much-left/ for the report’s conclusions.
The Earth experienced a warming period earlier in the 20th century which ended in the early 1940s, then went through a cooling period until about 1975, after which it warmed again until about 1998. Since then, the Earth has been cooling again. Nowhere in your comments do you point to any evidence that this warming and cooling is man-made. As such, why do believe that these natural changes in the weather are man-made?
Please support your claims with scientific data, not just anecdotal personal experiences.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
2. Climate Change in the News, Week of September 20, 2008 « Fresh Air. The Scent of Pine. | 09.19.08
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Zed | 09.19.08
These business groups opposed to California’s caps on CO2 are living in the stone age and using the same old scare tactics. An intersting point…. Over the last several decades California’s population has increased by many million, yet our energy consumption has remnined essentially flat. A net reduction in per capita energy use. Our economy here in California is as good as any in the country. This is the future folks. There is a small, wicked part of me that hopes the rest of the US keeps on the foolish wasteful path of unlimited fossil fuel use… just means more new technology jobs for us here in California.