CARB Part 3

The Cal Air Resources Board has finally come out with its analysis of the economic impacts of the implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32). They are still claiming that implementation will have a net positive impact on state income. The only way they can make such an outlandish claim is by ignoring that any jobs and investment induced by the act are a COST of implementation not a BENEFIT. Until they admit this basic flaw in their analysis they cannot be taken seriously.

Mary Nichols, the chair of CARB, is quoted in the LA Times as follows:

"Investment money is available for clean and green technology in California. It is in the billions. Investors are out there looking for a place to spend it."

Hello?
What on god's green earth is preventing these investors from spending this money now? Well, in fact, investors already are spending on "clean" tech. AB 32 may increase investment on this sector as Ms. Nichols implies, but again, this is a COST of the regulations. The money invested is lost to other sectors that may need investment. Are we to believe that the California Assembly knows best how investors should spend their money?

The absolute fraud of the assumptions behind this economic analysis needs to be exposed.