Ronald Bailey, “Red Ink and Green Jobs,” Reason:
In 2006, when California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a mandate for dramatic reduction of greenhouse gasses into law, the state’s economy was in a very different place. Unemployment was 4.5 percent and residents felt rich thanks to inflated home values. Today, 12.5 percent of Californians are out of work, the state is in budgetary meltdown, and Californians are re-evaluating their priorities.
Economic distress and skepticism about the power of the state to create “green jobs” are fueling a growing movement to stop deep cuts in emissions standards—which would require Californians to consume 25 to 30 percent less energy than they otherwise would have by 2020—from kicking in.
The Global Warming Solutions Act (also known as Assembly Bill 32, or AB 32) would ration greenhouse gas emissions—forcing them back to 1990 levels by 2020—through a mix of policies including a cap-and-trade carbon market along with a set of complementary measures. Those measures include setting fuel efficiency standards for appliances and buildings, requiring that 33 percent of the state’s energy be produced from renewable sources, setting a low carbon fuel standard for vehicles, and zoning changes to discourage automobile travel, among other new regulations and mandates.
Proponents of the 2006 law assert that its implementation will create a plethora of new “green jobs.”
[…]
The CARB and green economy boosters like Next 10 have strong ideological predilections that encourage them to minimize the costs of carbon rationing while maximizing the benefits of green investments. Of course, opponents of the carbon rationing law have the opposite motives. It is nevertheless instructive to see what opponents fear the effects of implementing the Global Warming Solutions Act will be on California’s economic prospects. The AB 32 Implementation Group commissioned a preliminary analysis of the CARB’s new study from the consulting group T2 and Associates. The consulting group is headed by Tom Tanton who is also a senior fellow at the libertarian Pacific Research Institute. The T2 analysis estimates that AB 32 will reduce California’s gross state product by 2 percent at a cost about $700 per person and result in the net loss of about 485,000 jobs by 2020.
The AB 32 Implementation Group is seeking to put an initiative on California’s November ballot that would delay the adoption of AB 32’s carbon rationing scheme until California’s unemployment rate dropped below 5.5 percent.
[…]
Already, the two leading Republican candidates for governor, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman and state insurance commissioner Steve Poizner, are urging a go-slow approach on implementing AB 32. If the economically dispirited voters in the Golden State appear ready to deep six California’s ambitious climate regulations, the prospects of Congress passing a similar national carbon rationing plan this year will look bleak indeed.
Bailey points out that the majority of Californians still support AB 32 — at least, according to a new poll released by San Francisco-based green think tank Next 10.
How much of that majority support is due to a real concern by Californians over (increasingly implausible) man-made “global warming” and how much is due to ignorance by same of the potentially devastating economic repercussions such legislation will leave in its wake, is unclear.
But one thing is clear: the rest of the US should be in no rush to adopt the kinds of legislation that has all but bankrupted California — and that will almost certainly guarantee that any new jobs will be, of necessity, the kinds of government jobs that are only produced at the expense of the dwindling private industry jobs they are meant to monitor and oversee.
California has a duty to demonstrate the benefits of these enlightened policies I think.
Watch and learn, America.
How much of that majority support is due to
Combine those “psychic benefits” with the fact that one vote never (or almost never) determines an election and so people don’t have a practical reason to vote rationally and have an emotional reason to vote irrationally.
What could go wrong?
How many McAfee jobs are there in Cali now? The state is rapidly approaching the tipping point where it is actually economically more attractive to uproot the business, take the hit on the breach of the lease and whatever other local contracts, and set down roots in someplace less overtly puritan… like Utah.
In twenty years, Hollywood Texas will make the major blockbuster “California: A Cautionary Tale”
happyfeet is not your friend.
Listen and learn, America.
whatever. I’ll be back and I’ll bring “friends.”
As long as you bring pie, hf. Mmmmm, pie.
these are very America, all of them
Who wants some nice meaty bowl of Chili? Yum, right?
Now, who’s willing to use solar radiation focused through a glass to make it? Anyone? Come on, sometime this week……. we’re getting hungry.
Cake is the gay brother of pie.
Chili is the cool older brother of stew who will buy you beer when you’re 17. Soup is the fun but kinda slutty sister.
I assume that “meaty” means “vegetarian” and the “organic” was implied in your Chili, right? ‘Cause otherwise Brother Starflakes gets all stabby. Meat being murder and all.
Carbon rationing law…
I wonder just how many tinmes one is allowed to breath per day under that statute?
Bob – I am going to go rip all of the flowers and trees out of my yard, just in case.
God help us all JD if “carbon rationing” comes to the wholesome, God-fearing heartland where you’re at…
It would surely be a sign of the Barack-alypse!
Well hell no. Actually, “meaty” meant “filled with illegal alien goodness, thighs first, aortic bits last”. But we’s just cannibalistic thataway.
It makes little difference what USA does in deployment. The world’s leading producer of solar power panels today is China. The leading markets per capita, are in Europe and Japan. though China is rising fast as a market too. FWIW the biggest assist to solar tech seems to be feed-in tarrifs, as demonstrated in Germany.
From what I’ve seen, the typical pattern for green-tech deployment seems to be:
Technology is invented in the USA.
It is transferred to the biggest market, Europe for technical development.
As it scales up, it is then transferred to the lowest-cost manufacturer, China.
Finally it saturates the global market including USA.
This is a good example of cutting edge solartech, that is in the transfer-to-Europe stage.
Using this pattern, each region contributes its greatest strength.
Carbon taxes have not yet demonstrated their value IMHO.
I am not a big supporter of carbon taxes.
If they are used, they should be revenue-neutral and replace other taxes.
solar panels are ghey
Well, they sure as fuck didn’t ask me.
A majority of Californians, or a majority of San Franciscans? Seriously, Bay Area greenies/leftists do not believe anyone outside the SF-Berkeley-Silicon Valley triangle has an opinion worth considering.
Huh. You know who else is a cannibal? Weird we should have that — of all things! — in common.
Not just low-cost, but effectively unregulated.
Not so “green”, those solar panels…
Keid,
Nanosolar CIGS cells are only 10% effeciency; about half of the best collecter technology…
Until that efficiency increases twofold, accompanied by more effecient, widely available, storage systems, solar power will not be as viable an option-outside of remote applications-as is being touted…
And I say that as a fan of solar power for residential lighting use as well other resistive loads around the house.
Kid A. Radiohead. nishizonofirstborn
Prepare for Kid A’z every sentence to end with a question mark, Bob.
Excellent point Spiny Norman,
A lot of “green” technologies are not so green to produce. And, many are products of military and aerospace research.
You know, all that money we waste on actual NASA space missions, and not funding Hanson’s portion of the AGW connivance, that we should be redistributing to the inner city instead.
Thanks for the warning guinsPen.
Having had experience with space vehicles, designwork as well as practical application, I’m well acquinted with the upsides and the downsides of solar power; as well as the fantasies that surround it.
I’m also familiar with his M.O.; having seen him push the AGW boulder uphill on other threads, against the unyielding gravitational pull of the facts…
When the going gets tough, I don’t fall for the, “I don’t know dude, ask a scientist!”, dodge.
There’s an old saying a MarDet Gunny taught me over 20 years ago; “Don’t let your Battleship mouth get you into a situation your rowboat ass can’t handle”…
Hi, Bob, here’s Kid’z most recent PW appearance.
It drew raves.
#26
What’s cool about falling water and thermonuclear is that they work at night and somebody else gets to store it. Sunshine? Not so much.
California has a duty to demonstrate the benefits of these enlightened policies I think.
Because they’re just not broke enough, yet…
Fletch,
The legacy of Gray Davis’ lavish spending and oh-so-generous paypacks to his government union supporters, and Ahnold’s complete failure to roll any of it back, will very soon force this state into genuine bankruptcy..
So not a good idea to invest in US green tech then. The conservatives don’t sound very enthusiastic. And if California is near-bankrupt, and many other liberal states too perhaps, then maybe no real support in the future.
Green portfolio should focus on Europe and Asia. Which is pretty much what I’ve been thinking anyway.
Capitalists should invest in green tech if they think it is a legitimate endeavor. NOT because green laws are coming down the pike. Fuck that. Mandating an economy never ends well.
I heard some commie fascist commercial on the radio yesterday about how we need to keep the green jobs here. Almost broke my radio I got so mad.
And, I’m bothered by this whole “Kid A” thing. Leave my Radiohead alone. Although Thom York is a raving liberal loon. Luckily I usually can’t understand what he’s singing.
about how we need to keep the green jobs here
No I wouldn’t argue that. Also I prefer to use positive incentives rather than draconian green laws. It’s about how the government can stimulate development in directions that are perceived to be in the long-term national interest or whatever. It’s not as if government spending doesn’t have a massive effect on the private sector anyway, like defence spending, say.
The reason why I wouldn’t argue there’s a need to keep green jobs, is because green industry will go wherever it sees the best conditions and returns. There is no need to “keep green jobs here” – If you don’t, as a nation, believe “green” is in your national interest.
FWIW, I think that USA is so far behind in the green stakes now, that it would be really hard for USA to overcome the disadvantage of years of neglect. It may actually be the better bet for USA to let Europe/Japan/China develop the solar tech and then USA can just import it as a finished solution sometime in the future. The profit will then go to the countries that have invested the most through the years.
That’s why I linked the high speed rail thing. It’s an example that the wider world can get on with something even if USA is totally disinterested. It is clear to me that different kinds of societies have different goals and directions of development. Trade will be based on comparative advantage. It doesn’t mean that USA has to be Europe-lite. These are different kinds of societies with different values – different strengths and weakness.
Also I prefer to use positive incentives rather than draconian green laws. It’s about how the government can stimulate development in directions that are perceived to be in the long-term national interest or whatever.
You know the best positive incentive there is, Keid? The government getting the hell out of the way. Not helping, nor stimulating, nor encouraging, nor forcing through regulatory fiat. Just sitting in the corner with a big stick, making sure that contracts are enforced.
Oddly enough, that works in every industry, not just the green ones.
Squid,
You know the best positive incentive there is, Keid? The government getting the hell out of the way.
Spoken like a true American. God, I’m so proud of you Squid.
I can almost hear the Star Spangled Banner playing in the background as I read that. ;)
In France or Germany or Japan, where industrial goals have always been a matter of state policy, not so much.
So take the different approaches and let them follow their own paths.
Variety is the spice of life methinks.
Why do Europeans have to be Americans or vice-versa?
If everyone followed the same approach there wouldn’t be any purpose for trade.
I comes as absolutely no surprise that this babbling clown is buds with nishit.
One thing’s for sure JD.
USA is less than 5% of the world’s population.
And there is no way it can dominate the whole world.
Not without spending itself into insolvency.
So I will bet on greater diversity in the future – Not less.
Maybe greater instability too.
I honestly believe this economic crisis marks the end of an era.
USA is less than 5% of the world’s population.
And there is no way it can dominate the whole world.
Where on Earth do you come up with nonsense like this? Where was it posited that such domination is anticipated, planned, or even desirable?
Glad to hear it Squid.
Link
It looks like English, sounds like English, and even sometimes bears the structure of English. But it ain’t.
PNAC? Really? Which commenter around here (besides you) links to that stuff? Who (besides you) advocates for that platform?
If you want to argue with PNAC, I suggest you run off and bother PNAC. We’re talking about other things here.
Squid,
Perhaps you don’t link PNAC, but I suggest you re-read your comment #35.
Squid, I don’t mean to offend you. But you are making absolute claims, without even recognizing the values like radical individualism that lie behind them. Which is why I teased you about it.
They are not really universal truths. Only one culture has ever conceived such a philosophy in its full-blown form.
They are not really self-evident truths, except to Americans.
“Green Jobs”
The next global warming scam.
If the market wanted the “Green” stuff it would be doing it already and wouldn’t need governemnt incentives. Government incentives is progspeak for government control.
Highspeed rail is a net loser, like the Concorde.
OK I’m done.
And the hundreds of millions of people yearning to become Americans.