Donate
Email Password
Not a member? Sign Up   Forgot password?
Business and Economics Education Environment Health Care California
Home
About PRI
My PRI
Contact
Search
Policy Research Areas
Events
Publications
Press Room
PRI Blog
Jobs Internships
Scholars
Staff
Book Store
Policy Cast
Upcoming Events
Should City Hall Go Bankrupt?
5.30.2012 12:00:00 PM
A CalWatchdog Series on Municipal Bankruptcy 
More

Capitol Update with U.S. Rep Darrell Issa (CA-49)
6.14.2012 12:00:00 PM
Chairman, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
More

Jonah Goldberg Luncheon and Book Signing
6.22.2012 12:00:00 PM

The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of IdeasMore

Recent Events
Benjamin Rush Society Debate: UCSD
5.17.2012 3:00:00 PM
UCSD Benjamin Rush Society More

Public Pension Tsunami: Closer to the Shore?
5.17.2012 12:00:00 PM
Public Pension Panel More

Benjamin Rush Society Debate: Harvard Medical School, May 3, 2012
5.3.2012 5:45:00 PM

Harvard Bejamin Rush Society Debate

 More

Opinion Journal Federation
Town Hall silver partner
Lawsuit abuse victims project
Press Archive
E-mail Print Air Board's analysis holds many flaws
Sacramento Bee Op-Ed
By: Thomas Tanton
12.7.2008

The Sacramento Bee, December 7, 2008

This is not the time to implement policies that will further cripple California's economy and put a disproportionate financial burden on the state's poor and elderly, but that is exactly what the California Air Resources Board is planning to do by implementing the Global Warming Solutions Act.

The air board has presented a rosy economic picture with AB 32, claiming it will create over 100,000 new jobs and $27 billion in increased production activity. However, a recent study by the Legislative Analyst Office points out the flaws in the board's reasoning. The LAO calls the economic analysis "inconsistent and incomplete."

They argue the report does not account for all of the costs associated with curbing carbon dioxide emissions, and that the air board "intentionally excluded costs and savings associated with certain measures." The air board essentially claims that any reduction in carbon dioxide is "cost-effective "no matter what the price. The board is willing to further cripple the economy in order to achieve minute changes in the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. And even this flawed economic analysis was done after, not before, deciding which measures to include. Economic analysis should be used to inform, not to justify, the plan's design.

The scoping plan also fails to include any strategies to deal with changing circumstances, either economic, science or political.

The plan is neither well thought out nor complete. The Air Resources Board is scheduled to vote Thursday whether to adopt the AB32 Scoping Plan. The board should delay adoption until it has a more complete plan and a better analysis.

Related Link
Submit to: 
Submit to: Digg Submit to: Del.icio.us Submit to: Facebook Submit to: StumbleUpon Submit to: Newsvine Submit to: Reddit
Within Press
Browse by
Recent Publications
Press Archive
Powered by eResources