Now that is rich! I forgot to mention I also support murdering baby seals, and sometimes shoot marmots for fun, oh and I hate recycling to boot.
Do you know me? Do you know my positions on pollution?
Data to back up claims, eh.
CHINA!!!! is the antithesis to your argument. High growth rate little GHG control.
[quote] It is your and Prof’s responsibility to back up the claims that carbon emissions controls significantly add to unemployment.[/quote]
This argument does not require specific data. I can find studies that show this, but I am sure you can find an equal and opposite number of the same. This point is simply made through logic, it is econ 101. Let me break this down into small digestible chunks.
If you take capital from a productive industry (one that makes a profit) and give it to an unproductive industry (one that does not make a real, unsubsidized profit), you will have less profit! Less Profit means less jobs.
Just to hammer this home in another way. If you increase the expense of doing business, businesses have three options, 1. go bankrupt (fewer jobs in this industry directly), 2. Pass on the cost to consumers (every other industry gets less capital from consumers…fewer jobs) 3. Leave the state (kind of like the first).
I have not commented on the benefits of regulating pollution (ftr I am not convinced CO2 is a pollutant, but that is besides the point)…I have only spoken of the economic implications of doing so. To argue that AB32 will magically create unproductive jobs without costing productive jobs is to deny gravity. But with that said, I am a big proponent of environmental protection, and the fact that you automatically believe that I must want to rape and kill the environment is sadly unsurprising.
ftr germany 12% more energy from renewables than california.
