Sacramento in denial - Even Congress figures out green regulation’s downside

The U.S. Labor Department report last week on December unemployment included still more grim news for California. The state had the nation’s biggest losses, with a net decline of 38,800 positions. Yet its unemployment rate stayed steady at 12.4 percent for a perverse reason: 106,000 state residents gave up looking for work.

Contemplating the depth of the recession, California’s most popular politician last week had the common sense to change her mind on a related big issue: how to regulate the emissions believed to cause global warming.

A proposed federal law would set limits on these emissions and charge the polluters who produce them. The companies would be allowed to buy and sell their pollution rations. Supporters say “cap-and-trade” would create market incentives to reduce pollution. Critics say it would be a job-killing, bureaucratic disaster.

Last week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said now is not the right time to find out. Instead, the San Francisco Democrat said lawmakers should focus on jobs, homeownership and other basic issues – not on new energy regulations.

This view is shared by many moderate Democrats in Congress. Lawmakers of both parties – echoing Energy Secretary Steven Chu – note that cap-and-trade would only make sense for the U.S. economy if other polluting nations adopted similar policies and thus had similar energy costs. Otherwise, the United States would have a huge competitive disadvantage.

Washington’s willingness to have a substantive debate on the economic effects of environmental regulation stands in stark contrast with Sacramento’s attitude. Republicans and business groups may be talking about the need to suspend AB 32, the 2006 law phasing in California’s version of “cap-and-trade,” on economic grounds. But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic legislative leaders want to squelch any debate on the topic.

This is even though the governor demanded a provision in AB 32 allowing the law to be suspended in times of economic hardship. This demand acknowledged that a forced shift to cleaner-but-costlier energy could have a downside.

Yet now Schwarzenegger claims that costlier energy will somehow help the economy and create a tidal wave of new green jobs – even as contrary evidence accumulates. A state report warns big utilities such as San Diego Gas & Electric will have to spend up to 59 percent more per kilowatt-hour by 2020. A University of California official pleads with the state air board for relief from AB 32’s costly provisions. The California Business Roundtable warns the law could kill 1.1 million jobs.

And from low-cost, business-friendly Georgia comes this report: “A Silicon Valley-based company that makes low-cost, high-efficiency solar modules is planning a manufacturing plant in metro Atlanta that could employ up to 1,000.”

California may lead the way in green innovation, as Schwarzenegger predicts. But that doesn’t mean the bulk of the jobs this innovation creates will be here. It’s time state leaders figured this out – and stopped pretending their aggressive environmental agenda is helping California’s economy.

An intelligent governor would have vetoed AB32. Schwartzegger has "bought into" the green jobs BS. Now he cannot come to grips with the fact that he's completely wrong and there are not going to be any significant number of "green jobs". It's a total fantasy. AB32 will drive out 10X as many jobs as it will create. That's how you need to look at it. Madness!

California is so screwed with the Democratic Legislature and this buffoon of a governor.

I will scream chicken little here!

Not with regard to the impact of manmade greenhouse gas emissions on climate - that pathetic house of cards is hopefully on the path to falling down sooner rather than later.

My chicken dance is about what EPA is doing while everyone is watching the GHG circus - ignore the man behind the curtain...

In approximately 1 year EPA has proposed or promulgated rules that will significantly impact businesses and communities in the US. More are coming.

In the last year EPA has cut the lead standard to 10% of its previous level, created a new NOX standard that is much more stringent, proposed an SO2 standard that is much more stringent, is reconsidering the existing ozone standard to make it much more stringent, is about to do the same thing as ozone with fine particulate matter, is about to finalize extremely stingent regulations for all non-utility boilers and process heaters (not to mention our cement plants and brick and tile manufacturers), and hammer utility power plants with all of the above plus new regulations, not to mention the EPA GHG endangerment finding and soon to come regulations. This doesn't even include congressional cap and tax.

They have also amped up compliance efforts with a heresay goal of "becoming revenue neutral with power plants being a good source of such funding." Their state level minions have gotten the memo and appear to be happy volunteers - at least in some places.

Cap and trade is a useless, ineffective even for the made up issue of global warming, and will be econominally, socially, and politically devestating to our country.

Nontheless - EPA is cracking away behind the scenes and most of the fit wont hit the shan for a few years. Unfortunately - to few are seeing the upcoming non-GHG chaos.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.