Natwerk Designs

Do any economists disagree that California's economy will benefit from a carbon cap and trade system?

In 2006, California passed AB 32 which among other effects will soon lead to the creation of a carbon cap and trade system within the state. Some Texas oil companies have funded a proposition on this year's ballot to delay implementation of the cap and trade system until the state's unemployment rate remains below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters - a level rarely met even in strong economic conditions. 118 Ph.D. economists who live or work in California or who have expertise related to California issues or climate and energy issues have signed a letter in support of AB 32, against Proposition 23. "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. For these reasons we urge continued support for policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These policies can improve our energy security, create new business opportunities and more jobs, and provide incentives for innovation." http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/2010-CA-Economists-LTR.pdf So I'm wondering, do you know of any economists who oppose California's proposed carbon cap and trade system? Since so many people seem to be misunderstanding the question, allow me to clarify. I'm not asking for your personal opinions, I'm asking if any economists disagree that a cap and trade system will be good for California's economy. Giving me your personal opinion, unless you're an economist, does not answer the question. Ottawa, almost every sentence in the quote I provided talks about 'costs' or something similar. I suggest you edit your response to actually attempt to answer the question. jim, yes! Economists and climate scientists are all stupid! That's got to be the answer - well done! deano - please name one economist who has said cap and trade will cost thousands of jobs and thousands of dollars in higher energy bills. Hint - Glenn Beck is not an economist.

Public Comments

1. Why should a plan that will halt economic growth and has brought the European economy to it''s knees work any better in California? The only ones that will benefit from Cap & tax are the ones collecting the tax and the ones doing the trading. Everyone else will lose.
2. California's economy is already in ruins because of the lefty loonies running the asylum, I'm sorry that's "state" not "asylum." I think all you need to is look at what California's energy policies have done to California's economy so far. Cap and trade is merely a continuation. But I am willing to give it a try. Let's enact Cap and Trade in California and see what it does before going nationwide. If, after five years, it really does "improve our energy security, create new business opportunities and more jobs," in California, then I'll be the first to support Cap and Trade nationwide. Edit: A shrewd move, Dana, asking specifically about economists. I'm sure I could find an economist working for the Heritage Foundation who opposes California's proposal. What do you think about my proposal for making California a test case for the rest of the nation. If cap and trade really does create jobs, let's see it happen in California before taking it nationwide. Do you agree?
3. First, let's clarify that it's the people who decide on policies not economists. We need economists and other experts to give us their advice. After that, they become citizens with one vote and one voice like everybody else. Second, these economists appear to be giving scientific advice about the future climate. Yes, we need them to assess economic impacts of various future climate scenarios, however I disagree that they should be giving advice on how soon to enact climate legislation. As you have pointed out many times before, these doctors are not climate scientists.
4. I am sure Starbuck would disagree and he is an expert on economics (just ask him).
5. I am guessing Obama will have no problem with California usurping a natiional issue or more properly an international issue. Any economist that signed on to that document shouldn't be trusted with money because they are obviously stupid. You cannot make a company more viable by reducing its competitiveness and lowering its bottom line. Your economists are even less reliable than your scientists. Both are obviously politically motivated. Thanks for providing such good evidence for that. Note: I went to lunch and decided that the only good excuse they provided was to suggest that there may be some companies that can take advantage of the new green regulations. The problem is that if it involves manufacturing, any state without the regulation would be able to out compete California. I didn't state that climate scientists are stupid just politically motivated. I should say, I think some are politically motivated. I shouldn't make absolute statements. I was just amazed that you found economists that would suggest it was good for California but economists are all over the place with opinions.
6. It will probably encourage more people who actually work to leave California, leaving it with an even higher percentage of freeloaders, illegal aliens and government bureaucrats. If you think that's a prescription for prosperity... then they must be geniuses.
7. Your question is surprising, I've never heard a legitimate economist say cap and trade will be good for any economy, all I've read say it will cost thousands of jobs and cost consumers thousands of dollars more in energy bills each year. Liberals like college " economists " will agree with you but they've never met a social program they didn't like.
8. Lets see, the closest guy I know to an economist is probably Jersy Joe, down on Kailukua st, at the Toby's bar and grill, Toby's is not the name they call it by now, it used to belong to Toby, his wife and him retired and moved over to Kona, anyway JJ takes our football bets, he handles it all cash only, so no credit, don't ask, so I can ask him for you if you want to know, but it sounds strange to me to pay the US gov for the right to purchase things we need, like gas, electricity, so they can give the extra money to people they like? I know they don't like me, so they give the money to someone else. Sounds like a bad idea, and it's gonna cost more to run the boat, already very expensive, probably get my bro canned, if they can't run the boat, he don't get to work. You like this idea? This gonna piss off my bro, and his friend Frankie, don't worry, I don't tell him who you are.