Viewing blog posts written by Gino DiCaro
California global warming solution: Additional item for a $1 or $100?Posted by Gino DiCaro, VP, Communications on Aug. 1, 2008
A dollar for an extra food item at Panda Express? Sure. A dollar extra at a retail store for a hungry children's charity? Of course. $25 more per gas tank fill-up for your own freedom and mobility? Oh I suppose.
These are the specific types of questions that should be asked of Californians as we make California-only global warming reduction regulations that will affect us all deeply. An extra dollar a day on an electricity bill to build the transmission needed to get renewable power to all corners of the State? An extra $10 a month in a mortgage for carbon-kind building material? An extra $2,000 on your vehicle for a low-carbon emission engine? Or worse yet, the loss of a job because a company can compete much better in another State?
If California is to meet its greenhouse gas goals, consumers must know -- and accept -- what exactly they are paying for and what it costs.
Two recent public items, among many, contribute to the notion that the public has accepted the real costs of AB 32. Absent, vague or minimal mentions of consumer costs lead everyone to believe that we can land at California's ambitious carbon reduction goals and an unaffected or even bolstered economy with little or no impact on our lives. Here's two examples:
1. PPIC's environmental poll: Californians and the Environment.
Just as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) can't accurately project AB 32's true costs without including complete, objective data and real-time financial impacts, the citizen can't make an informed decision about the acceptability of those impacts in their budgets or their lives. CARB is working diligently on research and data to tell us whether each additional item will be closer to $1 or $100. Until then, we should wait on the public's approval and our own predictions on the California-only life-changing undertaking.
0 comments | Post your comment