CARB plan update ignores warming lull

Scoping Plan UpdateJuly 2, 2013

By Dave Roberts

Five years ago the California Air Resources Board adopted a scoping plan to implement AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The plan outlines myriad regulations imposed on state residents and businesses in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

CARB officials are now updating the scoping plan. So you might think this would be a good opportunity to take a step back to see whether the plan is even necessary. The New York Times reported recently that the “rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.”

But second thoughts about the need for California’s vast regulatory scheme were not raised at CARB’s scoping plan update workshop in Los Angeles on June 26 (Webcast in the link). To the contrary, nearly everyone who spoke at the 4½-hour meeting praised the state’s efforts.

However, a couple of lone voices advised caution before leaping further into the climate change void. Richard Lambros, managing director of the business-led Southern California Leadership Council, pointed out that California is unable to accomplish much on its own. But it can have an impact if it provides a model for other states and nations to follow; failure to do so would leave California at a competitive disadvantage.

Challenge

“While we support the idea that as California achieves our GHG [greenhouse gas] goals, the challenge of global warming will still not be addressed,” said Lambros. “A level playing field will not exist domestically or internationally. Markets will continue to be imbalanced unless the remainder of the world does the same as what we’re doing here. Thus California’s greatest contribution ultimately in addressing this issue is to show the rest of the world how GHG emissions can be reduced smartly, cost effectively and in a manner that retains or improves a state’s or country’s global economic position.”

Whether that is even possible remains in question. The answer to that question is particularly important for Southern Californians, who are much more reliant on manufacturing, construction and transportation jobs than better-educated Northern Californians, said Lambros. Unfortunately for Southern California, those industries have a big target on their backs.

“All of those are front line industries when we try to start to further address climate change,” said Lambros. “So no matter how you slice it, we are going to have to smartly address those industries, or risk completely diminishing them. Which then has obviously a very significant effect because of our education gap and the makeup of our economy. So this has to be done smartly. That means from a regional perspective, we need CARB to set goals but leave a lot of local control and flexibility on how we achieve those goals. Ultimately this is all about creating smart followers.”

Texas

But while California is trying to become the anti-global warming pied piper, it may turn around to see that other states and nations are instead following the lead of Texas, which has two-thirds the population of California but twice as much carbon emission.

“They have 6.5 percent unemployment compared to our 8.6 percent,” said Lambros. “They have 4.8 percent GDP growth, we have 3.5. So while we are trying to do this, because of the lack of a competitive playing field, we are at a competitive disadvantage. We can have the greatest [anti-global warming] plans in the world, but we won’t get there because of the economic damage that will occur in the interim from our competitors. So it’s really important that we recognize that and try to allow ourselves to continue to work together. Work as partners, understand each other’s needs and do it smartly.”

It’s likely that Lambros’ words will fall on deaf ears, given the strong support and momentum for emission-reduction action in California, damn the anti-business consequences.

Two more scoping plan update workshops are scheduled: July 18 in Fresno and July 30 in the Bay Area. A draft report is scheduled to be released in mid-August. The board is expected to adopt the update in November.

11 comments

Write a comment
  1. Steele, Ted, When only the very best will do!
    Steele, Ted, When only the very best will do! 2 July, 2013, 10:09

    Global warming is a hoax– and Bush and Cheney did building 7 at the WTC and the gov still has the Roswell aliens and the moon landings were fake.

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Republifoxnewsbaggerscans, same ol deal ,zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Reply this comment
  2. CalWatchdog
    CalWatchdog Author 2 July, 2013, 10:54

    Ted: The report was from the New York Times, hardly a bastion of Trutherism and global warming denial.

    And AB 32, whatever you think of it, was passed seven years ago, a long time in policy terms. Arnold was governor, the real estate market was setting records, Calif. unemployment was 4.5 percent, the fracking (clean-burning natural gas) boom had not yet started. And AB 32, as the article notes, has inspired precisely no state or country to take similar actions, even though the text of the bill said it was supposed to do that.

    So wouldn’t even a little mid-course correction be in order? Apparently not.

    Thanks for confirming that AB 32 now just about perpetuating the government bureaucracy.

    — John Seiler

    Reply this comment
  3. us citizen
    us citizen 2 July, 2013, 12:29

    8.6% unemployment…….well there is Lambros’s first delusion. His second is not reading anything about global warming that is not govt backed or researched. Ya know the stuff that refutes all this nonsense and backs it up with cycles! Lordy Lordy, real evidence and not made up stuff by Gore (who also leaves out pertinent info that would refute what he wrote)

    Reply this comment
  4. loufca
    loufca 2 July, 2013, 13:22

    To Ted, ignorance is bliss.

    Reply this comment
  5. Rex the Wonderdog!
    Rex the Wonderdog! 2 July, 2013, 18:32

    Ted: The report was from the New York Times, hardly a bastion of Trutherism and global warming denial.
    ==
    Don’t feed the troll

    Reply this comment
  6. Queeg
    Queeg 2 July, 2013, 19:46

    Leave Teddy alone…..CWD alarmists are wrought with fear about most everything….sad….I have no idea why the white coats don’t help them…..every doomer down deep knows weather patterns are abnormal. Teddy has the guts to warn the naive….honor his service to mankind.

    Reply this comment
  7. Hank
    Hank 3 July, 2013, 08:14

    Ted, a word of caution you are getting close to the edge of the earth. If it gets any hotter in Sacramento the planet might boil over. You are loaded with concerns and belief, facts are troublesome things.Don’t let them distract you.
    Clear thinking and a sound footing in the facts are what got Ted and those like him where they are. A true follower of fashion.

    Reply this comment
  8. Dylan James
    Dylan James 3 July, 2013, 10:53

    Stupid premise. So, the argument is that California is going to reduce carbon emissions more than some other Countries and States and this places an unfair burden on them? Waah! What about Canada, who reduced their emissions by 11.4% over the past 5 years, compared to the USA’s 8%? Should they not have done that because someone else didn’t do as much? It’s just the right thing to do – and we all should be looking to do everything we can to preserve the quality of life we have on this planet. Californians should be proud, just like Germany, the Netherlands, France and other places are proud of their carbon reduction accomplishments instead of ignorant people taking part of a statistic, not all and attempting to dismiss basic science with it. Global warming is a fact, not conjecture. Just look at satellite photos of the polar ice cap now and 10 years ago. Oh, I forgot – pro business (profit at all costs) groups don’t want to look at any data that doesn’t affirm their own positions.

    Reply this comment
  9. Hank
    Hank 3 July, 2013, 12:19

    QUIT HUGGING YOURSELF AND OTHERS AND LOOK AT THE FACTS! GO READ WHAT THE EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE ACTUALLY HAS BEEN, A COMPLETE DISASTER. DAILY MAIL, SPIEGEL AND MANY OTHERS, OFFICIAL SPANISH GOVERNMENT REPORT ON THE COSTS AND BENIFITS. WHY DON’T YOU SEE IF YOU CAN GET ANY TWO COMPUTER MODELS TO AGREE, SEE HOW THEY DO ON FORECASTING OVER A KNOWN WEATHER PERIOD.
    PROUD? MAYBE BUT COMPLETELY WITHOUT FACTS AND UNWILLING TO SEE WHAT YOUR EYES CAN TELL YOU! MAYBE THAT HOTBED OF CRAZY RIGHT WINGERS ASSESMENT OF ELECTRIC CARS AS FOOLISH, UC BERKELEY.
    ALL HOT AIR AND DEVOID OF REALITY, A USEFUL IDIOT. LOOK THAT UP, IT SHOULD MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE.
    YOU SURELY HAVE A BRAIN, USE IT.

    Reply this comment
  10. Dyspeptic
    Dyspeptic 3 July, 2013, 16:29

    @ Dylan James,

    It’s your comments that are stupid. The point of Lambros argument is that unless everyone participates in the same tax and regulatory scheme those entities that tax and regulate more will incur a competitive disadvantage. This is pretty standard economic reasoning which you seem pathetically oblivious to.

    Your claim that our quality of life is adversely affected by how much carbon dioxide we emit is scientifically dubious and the New York Slimes article even implies this. There hasn’t been any “global warming” in over 15 years, even though carbon emissions have increased dramatically in that time. Aren’t you at least curious as to how that could be? Even climate scientists who believe the AGW theory admit that they are puzzled by the lack of accuracy in their models over the last decade and a half. They apparently don’t share your religious conviction on the matter.

    Surely you must be at least a tad embarrassed that the great guru of global warming, Albert Gore Jr. is a failed presidential candidate who flunked out of divinity school and got lower SAT scores that George W. Bush. And lets not forget Al Gores 70 million dollar windfall profit from selling Current TV to one of the biggest oil producers in the world. Do you really believe that Al and Jerry and Arnold and Barack and all of their billionaire oligarch friends are cutting back on their personal CO2 emissions to save Mommy Earth from a fate worse than death? FAT CHANCE SUCKER!

    “Californians should be proud, just like Germany, the Netherlands, France”

    Playing monkey see, monkey do with the likes of those countries is nothing to be proud of. If you want to do something personal to limit carbon emissions then perhaps you could try exhaling less often. Or living like a stone age tribesman. And stay away from beans, cucumbers and cruciferous veggies because methane and hydrogen sulfide are potent greenhouse gases.

    I guess some people would rather stand on their soap box and rail sanctimoniously about the ultra scary global cooling/global warming/climate change/climate instability bogeyman than exercise a healthy dose of skepticism.

    Reply this comment
  11. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 3 July, 2013, 18:43

    Teddy is always right….the weather is abnormal…accept your fate….

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Kotkin: Businesses, jobs exiting California

Commentary April 23, 2012 By John Seiler A couple of weeks ago Peter Douglas died. For 25 years he was

‘I Feel Duped on Climate Change’

John Seiler: The keystone of economic and technological growth in California for the next century is AB 32, the Global

Organized labor circles Uber and Lyft in CA

  Labor groups have sought out relationships with Uber drivers, whom the company recently settled with, but has yet to classify