Opponents to AB32 – supporters of Proposition 23 – I write both so that I beat it into my own head that 23 opposes 32 – say they’re concerned that cutting greenhouse gas emissions even on an oft-delayed schedule will wreck the state’s economy. A bunch of pointy-headed intellectuals beg to differ.
And within that group of intellectuals, some of ‘em are complaining about it. The Union of Concerned Scientists has a new letter out from a group of 118 economists they roped together. It’s presented with a cover page: “The most expensive thing California can do is nothing.”
From the letter:
The current recession and the very high unemployment rate in California present daunting challenges. Some have argued that these economic conditions warrant suspending the imple- mentation of emission reduction policies. We disagree. Delaying action now and waiting for the future before initiating accelerated action to reduce global warming gases will be more costly than initiating action now. Acting now is more likely to limit further environmental degradation, lower the cost of mitigation, and spur innovation in renewable energy and conservation technologies. Furthermore, policies that reduce global warming pollution are likely to provide immediate benefits to the health and welfare of residents by reducing local pollutants.
Now, of course, they’re assuming that governments are going to get around to it sooner or later, and California will be forced in that instance to mitigate its impacts. Is that an unfair assumption?
Oh, and, from UCSB’s Charles Kolstad:
The risk of significant negative consequences of our current emissions path should be sufficient for us to take meaningful action to cost-effectively moderate our appetite for emitting carbon and to spur innovation into carbon-lean technologies. Starting with automobile pollution control in the 1960s, California has been a leader in managing environmental problems. We are better off for it.
