AB32 Empowers State Regulators

OCT. 18, 2010


As we head down the stretch to the November 2 election, Proposition 23 has become the top initiative people are talking about. The debate mainly focuses on whether it would create or kill jobs.

Prop. 23 affects AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which cuts greenhouse gas emissions in the state by 25 percent by 2020. If Prop. 23 passes, AB32 would be suspended until state unemployment, currently 12.3 percent, drops to 5.5 percent or lower for a year.

Proponents cite studies, such as one by the state Legislative Analyst, showing that AB32 would put too many new burdens on business, thus killing jobs. Those backing AB32 insist that it is encouraging companies to create “green” jobs, giving California an edge in a vital new field.

A better way to look it AB32 is to see it as a type of industrial policy. According to the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, industrial policy gives “government officials additional authority, as well as the necessary fiscal and regulatory powers, to directly alter national industrial structures.”

That’s what AB32 attempts to do at the state level. On the day he signed AB32, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger promised, “Some have challenged whether AB 32 is good for businesses. I say unquestionably it is good for businesses. Not only large, well-established businesses, but small businesses that will harness their entrepreneurial spirit to help us achieve our climate goals.” Specifically, AB32 sets up “cap and trade” emissions market that would be overseen by the California Air Resources Board bureaucracy.

But such industrial policy has not worked well. In Japan in 1982, the Ministry of International Trade and Technology (MITI) began the Fifth Generation Computer Systems project, involving government and industry and costing $400 million over the next decade. It was supposed to leapfrog Japan over American companies in research and development. But it failed badly, beaten by the more nimble Sun, IBM, Intel and other American private firms.

In 1995, Michigan established the Michigan Economic Growth Authority (MEGA) to promote high-tech jobs through targeted tax incentives, such as for advanced batteries for hybrid cars. A 2009 study by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a state think tank based in Michigan, found that, “[F]rom 2001 to 2007, every $1 million in MEGA manufacturing tax credits awarded in a county was associated with the loss of 95 county manufacturing jobs…. MEGA credits are not working to improve manufacturing employment.”

And MEGA certainly hasn’t helped Michigan’s overall unemployment rate, which was the highest in the nation for four straight years, 2006-2010. Only in July 2010, the last month for which data are available, did Michigan drop out of first place, to 2nd place with a 13.1 percent unemployment rate. In first place was Nevada at 14.3 percent; California was in third place at 12.3 percent.

The reason why industrial policies fail is that governments cannot predict which industries, companies or products will succeed, and which fail. Even entrepreneurs have a difficult time of it, failing often. Remember the Microsoft Bob program?

In his book “Competition and Entrepreneurship,” economist Israel Kirzner wrote about the role of what he called the “pure entrepreneur … a decision-maker whose entire role arises out of his alertness to hitherto unnoticed opportunities.” In California more than anywhere, we have such men and women creating the world’s economic and technological future.

But the definition obviously precludes the politicians who made AB32 a law, and the bureaucrats who will implement it. These men and women have different skill sets. When they get involved in economics, they produce industrial policy failures such as those cited above.

Their proper economic role is to provide the political and legal structure in which entrepreneurs, and others in the private sector, operate and thrive. In matters of the environment, regulations on pollution, for example, have been enacted that have produced an environment cleaner than it was in the 1960s.

But these were not industrial policies. Industrial policies don’t work. If Prop. 23 fails, California will find that out.

Susan M. Trager has more than 30 years of experience in water law, public agency law, municipal law, right of way acquisitions, environmental law and eminent domain law, including the valuation of water rights. She also edits Trager Water Report, a new site on California water. Her opinions are her own and do not represent those of her law firm, Smith Trager LLP.

No comments

Write a comment
  1. Paul Taylor Examiner
    Paul Taylor Examiner 19 October, 2010, 07:57

    Over the last thirty years, Californians have developed a fetish for environmental causes. With little or no concern for the costs or provable benefits of these green initiatives, California has embedded exorbitant costs in all services, products, fuels, land uses and daily activities in the solemn belief that all environmental issues must receive immediate government attention and funding. Litigious, fear mongering eco-groups have brainwashed legions of followers that will leap over a cliff to save a wayward Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly. Capitalism, corporate profits, and ultimately, prosperity are the enemies of environmental activism. And, you the taxpayer pick up the tab for all of their theatrics.

    The green fetish has driven California to spend on reflex, rather than reality. The U.S. spends about 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) on environmental controls. California probably spends twice that for environmental regulations, enforcements, energy subsidies and gratuitous taxes at both state and local levels. California environmentalists are a partisan political special interest, and are as militant and destructive as the labor unions that have spent the state into endless budget deficits.

    Before the economic recession, Californians blindly approved the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) that mandates 2012 reductions of greenhouse gases through carbon taxes, and alternative and renewable fuel subsidies. All new climate laws increase the unit production costs and corresponding consumer prices of all goods and services. A study by the Governor’s Small Business Advocate reports that small businesses pay more than $134,000 each in annual California regulatory costs – significantly in green regulations. Estimates are that the total cost of California regulations is about $493 billion annually – the equivalent of 3.8 million jobs. A.B. 32 could cost the state an additional 1 million in job losses with its cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels.

    California voters can delay the California Global Warming Solutions Act (A.B. 32) by voting for Prop. 23 November 2nd. Prop. 23 would suspend implementation of A.B. 32 until the state’s unemployment rate is reduced to below 5.5%. California’s high 2010 unemployment (12%) has been approached twice in the last 30 years – in 1982 (11%) and 1992 (10%). In each of these economic downturns, it took 5 to 7 years of economic recovery to achieve the target 5.5% unemployment.

    What is clear in California is that partisan ideologies and cultish environmentalism have replaced prudent science and economic realities in climate policy. What is also clear is that radical environmentalism no longer offers any product or service in support of our future security and prosperity. Militant environmentalism and green-obsessed bureaucrats have become an “axis of antagonism” that we can no longer afford.

    Reply this comment
  2. Tom Tanton
    Tom Tanton 19 October, 2010, 09:02

    It is bad enough that the “industrial policy” is killing California…but it isn’t limited to industrial policy. It touches everything from the color of your car to where you’re allowed to live. It is much more akin to central planning than anything yet imposed on us.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Sacramento mired in budget bickering

Having failed to deliver during a special legislative session Gov. Jerry Brown called last year, Sacramento Democrats and Republicans squared off

Partisanship evidence of how much at stake in election

Nov. 6, 2012 Katy Grimes: This is the most partisan election I’ve seen since I first voted in 1980. But there

Prince of a governor?

Prince Frederic von Anhalt, 65, wants to be Governor of California. He believes in legalizing marijuana, Cuban cigars and prostitution and