REPORT DISSING CA’S AB 32 DISMISSED

Union of Concerned Scientists: LAO Study on AB 32 "Baseless Attack"
Steve Maviglio, March 10, 2010 (The California Majority Report)

"A March 4 letter from legislative analyst Mac Taylor to California State Sen. Dave Cogdill (R-Modesto) attempts to cast doubt on the economic benefits of the state's landmark global warming bill, AB 32. According to Jasmin Ansar, a climate economist with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Taylor fails to cite any research to support his claims that the state's economy would suffer under AB 32.

"The public release of Taylor's letter coincides with a statewide effort to gather signatures for a ballot initiative asking voters to nullify AB 32 unless state unemployment drops to 5.5 percent. Two Texas-based oil companies, Valero and Tesoro, are funding that effort. Current unemployment in California exceeds 12 percent…"

click to enlarge

"…Taylor claims that [AB 32’s near term net jobs impact is likely to be negative]…This statement is purely speculative. It is not backed up by any research. Taylor…[then criticizes] a preliminary economic analysis of the California Air Resources Board's initial plan for implementing AB 32…[and] concludes…[that] AB 32 .will result in…near term…California job losses…with no reference to any analysis that would support it.

"Taylor's baseless claims are contradicted by a number of independent economic analyses that find significant job growth potential at the state and national level for many climate change policies…Historically, energy efficiency, which AB 32 would expand, has been an economic winner for California…[R]esearchers at University of California, Berkeley found that California's energy efficiency policies generated nearly 1.5 million new jobs from 1977 to 2007, while eliminating fewer than 25,000…"

click to enlarge

"…[R]esearch group Next 10 found that California…clean energy jobs represent one of the bright spots in California's economy…[and] concluded that if AB 32 were put on hold, the state would lose $80 billion in gross state product and half a million jobs by 2020. Conversely, implementing a 33 percent renewable electricity standard and a 1 percent annual improvement in energy efficiency would increase gross state product by $20 billion and generate 112,000 jobs…[A] Center for Resource Solutions review of several macroeconomic analyses concluded that climate solutions are affordable and that pollution reductions called for by AB 32 are consistent with economic growth.

"Failing to act on climate change would be far more expensive than adequately addressing it…[California] has $4 trillion in real estate assets, of which $2.5 trillion are at risk from extreme weather events, sea level rise, and wildfires. Climate change [could] come with a projected annual price tag of $300 million to $3.9 billion…A recent UCS-commissioned case study by the Brattle Group found an insignificant increase in energy costs for small businesses under AB 32."