Debate continues in the California Legislature about legislation which, if enacted, would require mandatory reductions of industry so-called "greenhouse gas" emissions to 1990 levels. The Associated Press reports today that:
California businesses are divided over whether they can realistically meet the bill's mandatory reductions, both financially and technologically.
The measure would require utilities, oil and gas refineries, and manufacturers such as cement plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next 14 years so the state can return to 1990 levels.
Linda Adams, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency, describes the task as an aggressive target. The goal would be to reduce greenhouse gases by 174 million tons per year, or the equivalent of the annual emissions from 43 coal-fire plants.
What it might cost the state to reach those targets is a matter of dispute.
A study by a team of economists at the University of California, Berkley [WHERE ELSE!?] has projected that an emission cap - coupled with market-based programs designed to give industries other ways to meet their emission goals - would add $59 billion to the state economy and 17,000 jobs.
That would be gained through fuel efficiency savings, use of clean energy and a boom in new technology that advocates compare to the Silicon Valley's tech boom in the late 1990s, the study said.
The California Chamber of Commerce, however, has labeled the measure a job-killer bill, saying the mandates will drive businesses out of state and increase energy costs for Californians.
Depressingly, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, in the middle of a reelection campaign, is likely to sign this legislation out of political considerations, irrespective of the bill's dubious merits. California is, already, not a particularly happy place to do business; and, having during the 1990's advised business clients about the environmental issues pushing them to close up and move operations out of State, I expect that, once again, the prospect of even more legislative zaniness being implemented here would at least initially further threaten to drive business out of the State.
On the other hand, while the idea of a "California-only" Kyoto approach to may seem scary to business, at the end of the day California is likely to do what just about every country adopting Kyoto has done- praise it, adopt it, take credit for it and then forget about it.
The full AP report indicates that there may be exemptions and exceptions to any adopted legislation sufficient to ensure that the key industries affected can still profitably function--which means, of course, that the 1990 emission levels will in fact not be met. This is, as indicated above, what is happening elsewhere around the world, as I have previously detailed in various Posts over the last 18 months (see "Global Warming" on right-hand side of this page).
Nonetheless, in a State like California tilting so far left that a sturdy cane is needed for balance so things can function, enacting a "little Kyoto", though probably ultimately illusory in effect, always makes for a good sound bite in the middle of a reelection race.
