At times, even the best of us need to stand down, take a deep breath, and head back to the drawing board. That need to reassess happens in business when the market changes, in our jobs when the company downsizes, or in our lives when unexpected situations arise. We have unquestionably reached that point where the state needs to reassess the AB 32 Scoping Plan and find a solution that will balance the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the ability of the state’s economic system to absorb the changes.
Perhaps the problem with the current process is that we are demanding
too much from the California’s Air Resources Board (CARB). Rather than
asking an environmental regulatory agency to consider macro-economic
factors involving employment, industrial growth, and world trade, the
state should tap additional resources to weave together a plan that
will preserve our current jobs while we develop new technologies for
Almost every study on the CARB plan has revealed an economic impact,
but the controversy arises over two major areas. First, there is
disagreement over the degree of impact – some studies find significant
economic ramifications while other reports show minimal effects on
consumers and business. Second, the studies vary regarding the degree
to which costs will be offset by the benefits that may come with growth
of new technologies.