Global warming war heats up

Eisberg im Kongsfjord

MAY 17, 2010

By DAVE ROBERTS

If the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, more commonly known as AB32 for its Assembly bill number, gets put on hold by state voters this November, it may be due in part to two professors who dared to take on the state bureaucratic establishment by predicting that the legislation would lead to near economic Armageddon in California.

Implementation of AB32 over the next decade would result in California losing more than a million jobs, an additional cost of nearly $50,000 to small businesses and nearly $4,000 in costs for the average family, according to Sanjay Varshney, the dean of the College of Business Administration at California State University, Sacramento, and Dennis Tootelian, a marketing professor and director of the Center for Small Business at CSUS, in a study released last July for the California Small Business Roundtable.

“[T]he potential loss of output, jobs, indirect business taxes and labor income is substantial and significant,” they state in a press release accompanying the report. “[C]onsumers will be forced to cut their discretionary spending by 26.2 percent. … the average annual loss in gross state output from small businesses alone would be $182.6 billion, approximately a 10 percent loss in total gross state output. Lost labor income is estimated to be $76.8 billion, with nearly $5.8 billion lost in indirect taxes. This decline in revenues will have a severe impact on future state budgets.

“Small businesses drive the economic engine in California. An adverse impact on small business is bound to adversely impact the production of goods and services in California, the risk tolerance of entrepreneurs and investors, the productivity of labor, the quality of life, and the overall well being of the State and its citizens. Currently California is facing one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, an unstable real estate market with rising foreclosures, and rising numbers of families looking to move out of the state to find a more affordable living. Businesses are similarly faced with an inhospitable environment that features some of the highest taxes and utility costs in the nation, and an unfriendly regulatory climate that will likely result in more leakages of businesses elsewhere.”

The professors’ alarming findings are featured in large bullet points on the home page of the California Jobs Initiative (CJI) website, (although the findings are attributed to unnamed “economists” rather than Varshney and Tootelian). The organizers behind CJI – a coalition of oil companies, taxpayer organizations and business groups – have collected nearly twice as many signatures as needed to place the initiative on the November ballot. It’s designed to stop AB32 from being implemented until the state unemployment rate is 5.5 percent or less for four quarters. That would kill it for the foreseeable future – perhaps forever, the way things are going in the state.

AB32 requires carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, which equals about a 25-percent reduction from current levels. Over the next decade it will increase restrictions on everything from vehicle emissions to appliance efficiency to manure digesters at dairies. Just about everything that uses energy will come under its purview. Some implementation measures have already begun, affecting electrification of ships at ports, trucks that haul ship cargo, vehicle air conditioning, tire treads and landfill methane. The number and severity of regulations will increase in the coming years. The AB Scoping Plan timeline lists 72 measures that will be implemented.

Naturally, Democratic legislators, liberal groups and environmental organizations, with the backing of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state bureaucracy, have a vested interest in seeing it roll out on schedule. So, the release of the Varshney/Tootelian study last year was the proverbial dropping of the turd in the punchbowl, and they counterattacked. The California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), Attorney General Jerry Brown and several academics criticized the professors’ report.

“Examination of the Varshney/Tootelian analysis leads to the conclusions that their estimates are highly biased, are based on poor logic and unsound economic analysis, and are likely to be too large by a factor of at least 10,” concluded James Sweeney, professor of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford University, in a review in February.

CARB’s analysis of AB32, which it’s in charge of implementing, states, “After reviewing several critiques by independent economists, staff concluded that the Varshney and Tootelian estimate was unrealistic because it was driven primarily by two problematic assumptions – that AB32 would not induce any cost-saving increases in energy or fuel efficiency; and that all investments resulting from AB32 should be counted as losses to the California economy.

“Implementation of the Scoping Plan’s recommendations would likely have minor but positive impacts on small businesses in California. These benefits were primarily attributable to the measures in the Scoping Plan that were expected to deliver greater energy and fuel efficiencies. Thus, even when higher per-unit energy prices were taken into account, such efficiencies were expected to decrease overall energy expenditures for small businesses. Moreover, as the California economy was projected to experience continued economic growth associated with the implementation of AB 32, small businesses were expected to experience many of the benefits – more jobs, greater productive activity, and rising personal income – associated with that growth.”

But it was the LAO hit piece released in March that generated headlines such as this one in the San Francisco Chronicle: “Legislative analyst rips business reports.” The other Varshney and Tootelian report referred to in the headline concluded that regulations in California have cost the state’s economy $492 billion and 3.8 million jobs. “Our review of this study indicates that it contains a number of serious shortcomings that render its estimates of the annual economic costs of state regulations essentially useless,” Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor states in his report.

The backlash on Varshney and Tootelian has taken its toll. They declined to be interviewed for this article. “We were just waiting for things to cool off a little bit,” said Varshney. “The recent discussions we have seen have been fairly one-sided. We are just lying low right now. We are trying to keep our names out of the media for a little bit.”

But they did release a response on March 23 to the LAO critique: “We stand by the findings of our research, and emphasize that the costs of AB32 are materializing quickly as utilities announce sky-high rate increases, and still the economic benefits of AB32 are yet to be seen. The research conclusions about the positive impacts of AB32 that were relied upon for passage of the legislation have now been rejected by many sources. Instead, the conclusions in our report regarding near-term job losses have been confirmed by the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

“Rather than question the logic behind the AB32 or cost of regulations studies or attack their reliability, critics should talk to small businesses about the current economic challenges confronting California. Small business owners and the Legislative Analysts’ Office all agree that AB32 will cost Californians their jobs, the question is really about the degree and how many will be lost. We encourage the academic critics to produce their own research with a different methodology if they choose, and to engage productively in analyzing the issues that impact Main Street and the average family that is just trying to make ends meet.”

California Small Business Roundtable Chairwoman Betty Jo Toccoli clearly didn’t expect the firestorm that would result from the study. “I guess we did the report because at the governor’s conference a year ago the small business owners that attended said we needed to know something about the plan, what it would cost them … to help them plan for the implementation,” she said. She’s now not sure who to believe. “We have such extremes. From one side there won’t be any cost to business. Then we have this report that says it will cost jobs. It’s probably somewhere in between. We are not fighting AB32. We just want to make sure it’s implemented to make sure it doesn’t put any small businesses out of business.”

AB32 proponents appear to be vulnerable on that question, even if the regulations don’t lead to economic catastrophe. The LAO stated that some companies “might go out of business, cut back operations or choose to relocate elsewhere,” and that AB32 implementation will “involve various workforce labor dislocations, including temporary job losses and unemployment for some people and permanent unemployment and income disruptions for others,” pointed out Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, which supports the California Jobs Initiative, in a press release.

“The legislative analyst also warns that because of AB32’s substantial up-front costs, the California Jobs Initiative will not suspend or repeal environmental regulations that already protect our air and water. But it will protect jobs by aligning California more closely with other states and countries in a fiscally responsible approach to climate change policy. Placing the initiative on the ballot will give voters a voice in an issue that will directly affect their pocketbooks and quality of life for years to come.”

CJI proponents expect the initiative to be certified for the November ballot by the Secretary of State on June 24.

No comments

Write a comment
  1. EastBayLarry
    EastBayLarry 17 May, 2010, 19:59

    “…their estimates are highly biased, are based on poor logic and unsound economic analysis, and are likely to be too large by a factor of at least 10,”
    Sounds almost like the investigation into the CRU/IPPC report. That IS unfortunate since accurate data and analysis is urgently required on this critically important issue.

    On the other hand, economics is much better understood than ‘climate science’, so any exagerations are probably orders of magnitude lower than with the climate projections.

    Reply this comment
  2. TheTruthSquad
    TheTruthSquad 20 May, 2010, 13:55

    Thanks for using a photo of a melting glacier. Pretty much says it all.

    For the record, the statistics used in this report are from an industry-paid-for study that has been widely and roundly discredited by economists from Stanford, UCLA, and Tufts University. Even the authors themselves are not supporting the ballot proposition being bankrolled by Texas oil companies.

    And yes, typewriter companies went out of business when computers came along, and horse and buggy manufacturers went out of business when cars came along. And so will polluters when more efficient, cost-saving products come along. That’s what happens when economies transition.

    Reply this comment
  3. Tyler
    Tyler 21 May, 2010, 09:29

    You cannot sit there and complain about the study results when you continuously flaunt the garbage statistics that come from CARB. All of those studies are paid for by CARB, they have a predetermined result before they do any analysis, they mine the data, and every report they release is almost instantaniously discredited by legitimate scientists, then CARB has to come out and admit they are wrong a few months later. Credibility and accuracy are not something that CARB cares about, they just want to be able to point to something to deflect the blame when people start to realize how ill advised and disasterous their actions are.

    And yes Truthsquad (Or Maviglio, paid CARB mouthpiece, whatever it is you prefer) it is true that those technologies did become obsolete, but that was due to the FREE MARKET, NOT GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS. Those companies were not forced out of business because some nut jobs in unelected positions decided that they were no longer neccessary because something newer and better was going to come along 20-30 years down the road. There was a transition period in which the new technologies were improved and made more affordable. When the car was invinted, it was a LUXURY ITEM FOR THE RICH. It was not until the cars were more reliable and more affordable (Thank you Mr. Ford) that the horse and buggy was no longer the preffered method of transportation. When the computer was invented, it bas damn near as big as most peoples houses and was more expensive than the homes as well. Once again, in the infancy state of computers, they WERE A LUXURY ITEM FOR THE RICH. It was not until they were made smaller and more affordable that they replaced type writers.

    Just like those other wonderful inventions, the “Green Technologies” are in their infancy stages and they are not as reliable or cost effective as our current methods of producing energy and they ARE A LUXURY ITEM FOR THE RICH. The only people that can afford these “Green Technologies” are the rich and the low income people who basically get it for free because of government subsidies. The middle class cannot afford it and they do not qualify for the subsidies from the government. The middle class is being isolated and will be destroyed by AB 32 because they are stuck in no mans land.

    Once these new technologies are perfected and are more affordable, the FREE MARKET will naturally adopt them as the standard method of generating energy. Government forced adoption of these technologies that are not dependable or affordable will have devistating economic and social consequences.

    Just because some radical in a position of power picks a horse to win, that doesnt mean the rest of the horses should be shot before the race in even run.

    Stop trying to play God with the economy and the lives of California citizens and let the FREE MARKET run its course. As much as you may hate to hear it, you CANNOT control everything. The results of your decisions will not be as good as the results of the FREE MARKET. The FREE MARKET knows better than you do.

    The fact that you have hired professional liars to try to trick people into drinking your kool-aid is pathetic. Stop trying to control peoples lives by lying and let the FREE MARKET run its course. Just because you think something is right does not make it true.

    Reply this comment
  4. Joe Sullivan
    Joe Sullivan 12 June, 2010, 10:54

    Assembly Bill AB32

    Joe Sullivan – Geological Engineer

    The Governor of California, in ignorance of what really constitutes Global Climatic change, signed into law Assembly Bill AB32 on September 27, 2006, the Global Warming Solutions Act, requiring California to develop regulations that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, principally CO2, to 1990 levels by 2020. The total cost of the ineffectual regulations may bankrupt California without affecting climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the so-called authority on climate change, yet Vice Chair Yurri Izael in April 2007 wrote, “the panic over global warming is totally unjustified;” “there is no serious threat to the climate.” IPPC reports are not those of its scientists, but are policymakers’ summaries produced by a committee of 51 government appointees, many of who are not scientists. Some of its 2500 scientists have resigned in protest against IPPC summaries, in which these political appointees alter their own scientist’s reviews. The latest example of this type activity occurred at the end of 2009 when computer hackers broke into the computers of the British Hadley Institute, hailed for its research of global warming, and it was discovered the Institute manipulated data to cover up evidence that went against their beliefs in man-made global warming. Admitted was that we are not seeing global warming, but rather global cooling. I have seen the same evidence in graphs showing the start of the cooling trend. From 1850 to 1950 CO2 levels increased significantly, but the temperature rose only 0.1 degree Celsius. The earth has been cooling and is likely to do so for the next couple of decades. Understand that all the hoopala about global warming is based on a supposed increase in CO2, which makes up only 3.4 one-hundredth of one percent of the earth’s total gases in the atmosphere. That 0.034 percent, which Global Warming advocates want to reduce by a smidgen at a cost of trillions of dollars worldwide, is being advocated at a time when the earth is cooling.

    Credentials that permit me to comment on the subject are that I have been a Geological Engineer for over a half century, one of 31,478 scientists registered in the Global Warming Petition Project, who oppose politician’s idiotic plans to spend billions trying to reduce carbon dioxide. In 1977 I was Chief of the Special Programs Unit at McClellan AFB, CA involved in tasks supporting Missile and Space Programs, and Satellite Communications Systems. We were responsible for maintenance of ground receiver stations for polar earth orbiting weather observation satellites, part of the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program. The weather information, pictures and other classified information were provided to Department of Defense command elements. We were also involved in developing a new generation of weather satellites, and the modification of all receiving stations. I know how to read climatic data, whereas I don’t believe either the ennobled Al Gore, nor Governor Schwarzenegger can.

    During Earth’s history, global warming has happened many times. Weiner, in “Planet Earth”, wrote that the Earth was an icehouse 18,000 years ago, and a hothouse 100 million years ago, without a speck of permanent ice anywhere. What really affects our climate? During Earth’s formation it was impacted at a low angle by Theia, a planitodail mass a little smaller than Mars. The impact knocked off part of the earth’s forming mantle, which later formed part of the moon. Theia’s impact is responsible for the earth’s 23.5-degree axial tilt, which created the Earth’s seasons. After the impact the remaining mantle fractured, and parts drifting on the earth’s semi-molten surface formed tectonic plates. The plates collided with each other many times and the present set, making up our continents, are still in motion. The earth’s tilt; changes in the way it orbits the sun; variation of the sun’s radiation as it burns up; volcanic eruptions; changes in oceans flows; and melting snow and ice control the earth’s climate. Large numbers of earthquakes occur every year, a reminder that earth is a cracked dynamic sphere, whose parts are constantly in motion, and are all involved in climatic conditions. Calder, author of “The Restless Earth” ended his book on the earth’s tectonic plates by wondering whether humans will continue to exist as the great plates make their movements, and remarked: “to the Earth it’s a matter of indifference.” Global warming control efforts are a farce.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*


Related Articles

Shape-shifting pol: It’s dirty pool to mention my shape-shifting

The saga of Nathan Fletcher — the 90 percent conventional Republican assemblyman who became a righteous, holier-than-thou independent before ending

Covered CA premiums set to spike

  For some time, Obamacare critics have warned that health insurance premiums would skyrocket once the Affordable Care Act went

Dan Morain disses Tom McClintock

Jan. 10, 2013 By John Seiler In my decades of reporting, I’ve met few public officials with the integrity of