California Air Resources Board aka the Climate Politburo

I will be doing an extended critique of the Ca Air Resources Board (CARB) "Draft Scoping Plan" for fighting the phantom menace of global warming.

CARB claims that their proposed regs will provide net benefits to the economy, a claim I find ridiculous on its face as a letter to the LA Times expresses. A true cost benefit of any regulations like they are proposing will certainly have costs outweighing benefits, especially since the costs are imposed on the private sector. And what might be the benefit of such regulations? I, of course, believe there will be zero benefit, except to lawyers, regulators and eco-fascists. But, just for the hell of it, let's see what CARB thinks will be the benefits in its initial study (they will be releasing more info, including hard data, to support their outlandish contentions over the summer (while it's hot--surprise!):

• Job creation in the emerging "greentech" industry (p. 50)

These jobs are a cost, not a benefit!

• Other economic benefits from the "greentech" industry similar to what occurred with the computer industry (p. 50)

We'll see if this prophecy comes true, but again spending in this area should be counted as a cost.

• "Fuel diversity"--p. 50

Not sure what's stopping people from introducing new fuels now--if they are efficient products the makers should be richer than Warren Buffet.

• Influencing "the regional and national debate about how to address climate change."--p.50

This is a benefit if the whole program is a benefit, which it isn't, so it isn't.

• "Reduce statewide NOx, VOC and PM emissions" - p.51

Completely ignores the cost to the producers and sellers of these items.

• "The impact of the Scoping Plan measures on the state economy is likely to be overall positive, but very small relative to expected growth." (emphasis mine)--p. 51

Just a completely outlandish statement unsupported by any data or logic.

• "These estimates indicated that the overall savings from improved efficiency and developing alternatives to petroleum will on the whole outweigh the costs." -p 52

So...improving efficiency and developing alternatives to petroleum have no costs! Not bloody likely!

• "...any costs associated with the introduction of greenhouse gas reduction policies will have relatively little impact on continued economic growth."--p. 53

If this means that economic growth will continue after the regulations are imposed than I would say this is irrelevant.Most likely the economy will grow. The question is how much will growth slow due to these regulations. If they are saying there will be relatively little impact on growth I guess it depends on what they mean by "relatively". Relative to what? Maybe relative to Stalin's crushing of the peasants' economy in Ukraine.

• Increased energy costs will be offset by more energy efficient cars and homes p.53

Again, more energy efficiency has no cost? And why should the government know better than consumers and businesses about how to spend their own money?

• "...vehicle greenhouse gas standards increase the efficiency of cars and trucks, the fuel savings put money directly into consumers' hands to spend on additional goods and services--causing increased economic activity in California." p. 53-54

They spend the money on fuel or "additional goods and services. Spending money on fuel doesn't count as increased economic activity but spending "on additional goods and services" does? This proposition is absurdly illogical.

• "...taking action sooner rather than later..." will increase benefits and decrease costs--p. 54

But maybe waiting to act or not acting at all. After all, money in the future is worth less than money now. They don't know if this is true or not, they're just guessing.

• Regulation "will generate investments in climate change emissions reductions..."- p. 54, "creates new businesses and new jobs"--p. 55

How many times will we have to say that jobs and investment are a COST, not a BENEFIT?!

• "Much of the economic benefits of greenhouse gas emission reductions is from reduced spending on energy."--p. 54

I guess this is great, unless you work in the energy business--but who cares about them? What might be a benefit to some is a cost to others, so it cannot be counted as a straight-up benefit.

• "Sucessful California-based providers of energy efficiency technologies can capture a share of that rapidly growing export market, estimated at 170 billion."--p. 55

I'm not clear on what prevents entrepreneurs doing this now and why CARBs regulations are necessary to make it happen.

• "Between 1990 and 2006, California green technology businesses grew 84 percent, adding more than 10,000 jobs to the economy."--p.55

EEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! Again, these jobs are a COST!! Please get this straight!!!

• "Where applicable and to the extent feasible, ARB will direct public and private investment toward the most disadvantaged communities in our implementation of the climate change program."--p.55

And as icing on the cake the so-called benefits will be used to bribe disadvantaged folks to vote Democrat. How can such a program of affirmative action possibly increase the costs of such a wide ranging regulatory structure? (sarcasm)