Viewing blog posts written by Gino DiCaro


Poll: AB 32's glaring weakness -- CA-only costs

Posted by Gino DiCaro, VP, Communications on Jan. 21, 2010

EMC Research released a follow-up poll today to the one they did a year ago on Californian's attitudes toward AB 32 and the state's desire to go it alone.

There were two major take-aways from the poll.   Overall, the public is more sensitive than ever to cost issues (with strong support for AB 32 dropping from 31% to 15% since EMC's 2008 poll), and a large majority (66%) of the public says California should not go it alone on greenhouse gas reductions regulations.   A month before a long awaited second economic analysis by the California Air Resources Board, it is clear that costs must drive AB 32 policies and regulations.


poll chart

The state's greenhouse reduction program is not a freebie.  Large costs foisted on an unemployment-riddled state economy and increased industry electricity rates already 95 percent higher than western competitor states are not affordable at this time, if ever.  The above poll numbers, 600,000 lost manufacturing jobs since 2001, 12.3% unemployment, and the electricity rates below provide some of the most rational context for the AB 32 policy debate.  In other words, how can we implement the program so it doesn't hurt the state's economy and jobs, and in a manner that gets the whole country to help reduce global warming emissions?


electric rates



 





1 comments | Post your comment

Fox News and Valero explain California's potential cap and trade costs

Posted by Gino DiCaro, VP, Communications on Dec. 10, 2009

This week, Fox News tried to explain what California cap-and-trade costs might look like in an attempt to predict what a national program would cost.  Valero energy indicated that California's program would force them to pay $7 billion annually -- an amount they simply can't absorb and must pass on to consumers.

CARB Chairwoman is also on record in the Fox News piece saying that "we expect there will either be a modest cost or a savings".  This just weeks after CARB's own cap and trade proposal conservatively predicted $143 billion in costs by 2020.





0 comments | Post your comment

Can California afford global warming scheme?

Posted by Gino DiCaro, VP, Communications on Dec. 2, 2009

The California Air Resources Board policy team released its draft greenhouse gas cap-and-trade proposal last week.  According to the agency's draft, a cost of $60 per ton of Co2 between 2012 and 2020 would total $143 billion over the first 9 years of the program.  The estimates for costs per ton of reduction range widely depending on the design of the program.  Some estimates reach as high as $200 per ton!  It is unlikely that industry and high-wage employers will be able to compete in global markets with these overwhelming California-only costs.  A program this costly should come with a valid economic analysis to show that California can grow its economy and add jobs while subject to these costs. So far we have not seen that proof.

Read VP Dorothy Rothrock's official media statement on the overall draft proposal.





0 comments | Post your comment

3rd post from CMTA Energy conference

Posted by Gino DiCaro, VP, Communications on July 26, 2007

From the Climate Action Registry's Joel Levin regarding global carbon trading:

"From 2005 to '06 there was a 300% increase in amount of global carbon trading from $8 to $25 billion." 

"The offset market today looks a lot like the market for medicine market did before 1906 ... consumers had no idea what was good and bad."


From Devra Wang, with the National Resources Defense Council, regarding ability to purchase offsets to help reach AB 32 goals:

"Offsets should have only a limited role if at all"


From V. John White, with the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, in response to question on market approach to emission reductions:

"Markets can work ... I'm disappointed that we only looked at cap and trade ... cap and trade should simply be a part of what we’re doing.  The more aggressive you are with cap, the more you need to provide different ways to comply."


From Kip Lipper, with State Sen. Don Perata's office,  in response to question on market approach to emission reductions:

"We ought to follow the law ... statute ought to govern the process, not committees ... it seems like people think a cap and trade is a non-regulatory thing .... We’d like to see CARB go through the process ... the law speaks about a lot of different market-based compliance mechanisms, but the MAC only looked at cap and trade."



Tags: AB 32 CARB


0 comments | Post your comment

2nd post from CMTA's Energy Conference

Posted by Gino DiCaro, VP, Communications on July 26, 2007

Key quotes from Winston Hickox, CARB AB 32 Market Advisory Committee Chairman

"I personally believe that climate change and energy pricing volatility represent one of the most significant problems of mankind."

"I have no doubt that early action measures will be addressed"

"A carbon tax would likely give you the most certainty regarding costs but the least certainty regarding the amount of reductions ... it is not a friendly tool.....with a cap and trade you have certainty about reduction but not about costs.  A hybrid approach with the ability to adjust is the answer ... and we have to understand there will be some amount of unintended consequences."




Tags: AB 32 CARB


0 comments | Post your comment
View next 5 entries

Copyright © 2019, California Manufacturers & Technology Association. All rights reserved.