Special Report
Greens Against Growth
The media hides an inconvenient truth: California’s clean-energy law has damaged the state economy.
Under normal circumstances, November 2008 might have been remembered as a key moment in the American climate-change policy debate. Two independent evaluations were made public that analyzed California’s groundbreaking, path-setting 2006 law dictating a sharp state increase in the use of cleaner, costlier energy — specifically Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s repeated assertions that not only would the law not be a drag on the economy; it would actually make the state’s economy healthier. Similar claims are common in Washington and many state capitals, which are all considering California-style regulations.
Both evaluations were highly dismissive of the notion that the California plan would help the economy. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office — the most respected voice in Sacramento — concluded (pdf) that the California Air Resources Board’s claims of economic gains were simply not sustained by the “scoping plan” it released outlining the implementation of the 2006 law. Instead, the plan ignored likely negative effects and cherry-picked data to produce a forecast of long-term economic benefits. Most tellingly, the LAO noted that the “ARB deemed all measures included in the plan ‘cost effective’ simply because they reduce GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions, whatever the cost.” By this logic, a business shutting down would be “cost effective.”
But the most damning criticism came from the economists hired to do a “peer review” (pdf) of the ARB. Most were stunned by the shoddiness of the ARB’s analysis.
Wesleyan University’s Gary Yohe denounced the “spurious precision” of the ARB’s forecasts, detailed vast shortcomings in the report’s methodology and found the readiness of the ARB to make such confident claims “almost beyond belief.” Two analysts from the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, Janet Peace and Liwayway Adkins, also faulted the report’s methodology and said the report “gives the appearance of justifying the chosen package of regulatory measures rather than evaluating it.” UCLA’s Matthew Kahn detailed how the ARB had simply ignored the likely effects of much higher energy costs on California manufacturers, who employ 1.5 million workers.
But the most striking remark came from the most prominent peer reviewer: Robert Stavins, the director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program. He warned that the ARB’s plan had so many “glaring and severe errors and deficiencies” that it could set back efforts to aggressively deal with global warming.
“I fear that at this stage of the process, CARB will find itself in a position of being compelled to publicly defend its economic analysis from critiques such as my own, rather than significantly amend it in response to expert commentary,” Stavins wrote.
So much for the view that the Golden State was a climate-change model for the nation and the world. The Harvard economist clearly expected the negative reaction to force California to go back to the drawing board with its energy policy — or to at least acknowledge the economic downside of a forced move away from cheaper energy sources.
Under normal circumstances, that’s just what would have happened, and the happy talk about a painless transition to a new energy era might have been discounted.
Instead, the main effect of the two studies has been not to change the course of the climate change debate but to confirm the media is hopelessly in the tank on global warming.
As of Wednesday, a Nexis search shows the only newspapers anywhere to detail the findings of either the Legislative Analyst’s Office or the peer-review economists are the San Diego Union-Tribune, where I work as an editorial writer, and the Sacramento Bee, which had a total of one 450-word account.
What was once merely a media hostility to skeptics of human-caused global warming has now mutated into a media hostility to anyone who has any doubts about the invasive, inevitably costly ways that government wants to deal with climate change. And so the critics of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s bogus claims for his global-warming approach must be ignored — even if they have impeccable reputations and unimpeachable credentials.
Now here’s the sick kicker to this story of the news media’s greenout: The head of the California Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols, was widely reported to be on President-elect Barack Obama’s short list to be the next administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. This was no surprise, given Obama’s lavish praise of Schwarzenegger’s aggressive climate policies.
But at some point will the media note that far from playing a constructive role in the global-warming debate, Nichols’ agency was actually castigated by Harvard’s Stavins, the author of the most widely used textbook on economics and the environment?
Don’t bet on it. The media have their narrative, and they’re sticking to it — all inconvenient truths be damned.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (16) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Chris Reed
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/11/greens-against-growth
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
JP| 12.11.08 @ 8:15AM
What is ironic is not how Global Warming is wreaking havoc on the California economy, but just the opposite. Californians are about to get hit with another polar blast from Alaska. That would make it 2 devastatingly cold winters in the last 3 years. The cost to agriculture is obvious, not to mention the hit Californians will see in thier heating bills.
Since late 2007, the Pacific Ocean has undergone what is dubbed a phase shift. A central Pacific oceanic temperature anomaly known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) shifted from warm to cold. This change in phases has far reaching implications not just for West Coast climate, but also for global climate.
A cold PDO generally inhibits El Nino events, and enhances La Ninas. The tropics during a warm PDO enhances El Nino events, and sends warm bands of tropical air, which travel poleward. When caught up in the westerlies, these bands form powerful storms, which slam into California and later form powerful storms on the Atlantic coast. During periods of the warm PDO, Austrailia sees prolonged drought, as does East Africa, and portions of North America and South America.
The opposite occurs during the cold PDO period. During the cold PDO rainfall returns to normal in Austrailia, but drought conditions can prevail over the West Coast. Winters along the West Coast can be downright cold. And due to the lack of tropical air making its way poleward, the interior of Alaska and Canada cool. These different Pacific phases usually last anywhere from 20-40 years.
There are many other oscillations which determine global climate, but the PDO is key because of the area it encompasses (large portions of the Central Pacific). One other thing to consider is solar activity. Long term climate variability can be traced to a solar oscillation known as the Gliessberg Cycle. This is a 400 year solar cycle which oscillates between positive and negative (negative being minimum solar activity). The last negative cycle ended about 192 years ago with the ending of the Dalton Minimum. Both the Dalton and Maunder Minimums occured during the last negative cycle -which happened to occur during the coldest decades of the Little Ice Age.
Solar Cycle 24 has been weak to almost anemic. I'm almost beginning to wonder we should be worried about the exact opposite of Global Warming.
Ned| 12.11.08 @ 10:12AM
No growth and the greens got me thinking that we could once again find a use for the homeless people made so famous during the eighties when Reagan was President. They could be bought or say leased out as carbon credits. Their lifestyle allows them complete freedom from contributing to Global Warming. They have a very small carbon footprint. No electricity, natural gas, gasoline, cars, nothing. They are the ultimate green environmentalist of the 21st Century.
Companies could spring up that register homeless people. These companies could pay a homeless person a small fee; in turn the homeless person agrees to stay homeless. Then they let their name be used as a carbon credit for a non-homeless environmentalist. These companies then sell or lease these names, as carbon credits for a large fee to the wealthy and cash in on their guilt. A nice little certificate could be issued for each credit which has a picture of the homeless person and his vow to stay homeless so long as he is receiving his monthly stipend. Then when a wealthy liberal feels guilt or is questioned about a high carbon footprint, they could pull out the certificates to show how they have offset their excessive use of carbon. Decks of cards could be made, like the most wanted ones for the Iraq War, with homeless people on them. Maybe people could trade them.
Maybe some bumper stickers, such as:
Stop Global Warming, Go Homeless.
Have You Hugged A Homeless Person Today?
Thank The Homeless, Gaia does.
Love Earth, Keep The Homeless, Homeless
Joe| 12.11.08 @ 11:24AM
Ned,
Great idea--and funny as hell. Can you come out and play today?
Ned| 12.11.08 @ 12:35PM
Joe, sorry I'm grounded.
WJ| 12.11.08 @ 3:06PM
I think that this experiment in green destroying businesses will end up being a valuable lesson to the rest of the nation.
As an ex-Californian, I feel bad for all the lives that will be hurt by this growth inhibiting regulatory over-reach. But when the supposed "green jobs" and other alledged benefits do not materialize, the rest of the nation will be able to see.
California is on it's way to becoming the next Michigan.
Marc Jeric| 12.11.08 @ 3:42PM
With this ongoing 10-year cooling cycle - has anybody observed how the globaloney warming scam has evolved into the climate change scam?
Bob Ab | 12.11.08 @ 5:23PM
WJ, unfortunately you are wrong. Last week Florida gov't moved along the adoption of California type emission regulations for autos. It shows that morons are somewhat evenly spread out across the country.
DaveS| 12.11.08 @ 6:45PM
With tin cup, and hat-in-hand, the governor is talking about going to the Feds for money (mega-billions) and Sacramento insists on green 'idealism' without pause or justification. Is there a sane person above the rank of dog catcher in all of California?
Bob R| 12.12.08 @ 9:54PM
Somehow I fail to be surprised at all the problems besetting California. It did not acquire the title of La-La Land without justification. If you were looking for the largest collection of nut-cases in the USA, California comes to mind.
RealDeal| 12.12.08 @ 11:54PM
It takes 7 years for a real fur to biodegrade itself into pieces in a landfill....
It takes 300 years for a fake fur...
So why do the environmentalists hug the chemical companies, and not the rancher or trapper?
John Spencer Yantiss | 12.13.08 @ 4:48PM
To answer RealDeal's question of "why do the environmentalists hug the chemical companies, and not the rancher or trapper?" it is because--no doubt you already know this--their true goals have nothing really to do with the environment, but control of the general populace. Of course, the vast majority of those who blindly support Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, etc. really have no idea of that reality, and would vehemently deny that such existed if confronted by it. It is part and parcel of the liberal/socialist/secular humanist movement which has taken over academia, the entertainment industry, the mainstream media, and, here in the U. S., the Democrat party.
Matt| 12.13.08 @ 5:59PM
The beauty of federalized states able to learn from the mistakes of others is lost on so many Americans who would love to see a single man experiment with the nation in order to "fix" the economy and lower sea levels.
Pingback| 4.28.09 @ 7:28AM
General Confusion links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
links of london sale | 9.10.09 @ 10:32PM
Thanks for your information, i have read it, very good！