Proposition 23

[CA renter]

[quote=EconProf]I have seen that study of the damaging economic effects of Prop 32 cited elsewhere and as far as I know it hasn’t been refuted by the anti-23 crowd. Part of it predicts the loss of 1.1 million CA jobs, I believe over 10 years. Even if their conclusions are off by a factor of three, its a disaster to our already high unemployment rate.
Proposition 32 is commiting economic suicide by a single state. The jobs and businesses will flee to neighboring states (and countries), a process that has already begun.
You may remember the Law of Diminishing Returns. It holds that additional efforts (or inputs) yield smaller and smaller benefits. This has relevance to fighting pollution. The cost of cuting in half a gross polluting vehicle (or factory, or coal-fired generating plant) is quite small, compared to the cost of cutting pollution by 75%, or to get really expensive, 90%. Initial measures are cheap and easy, making that plant 99% clean would be exhorbitant and wasteful. This suggests we shouldn’t aim for perfection but have to accept an optimal level of pollution. What the posters on this site disagree about is where that optimum is.
I don’t like pollution, but I think Prop 32 went too far. Since China is building a new coal-fired electric generating plant every week, totally uncontrolled as to emissions, CA’s heroic efforts with Prop 32 are wasteful and insignificant to the world’s pollution. China (and Mexico, etc.) should be persuaded, or paid, to control their pollution first. It would be cheaper for us, since a small dollar cost would result in much more pollution abatement as they are way back oin the diminishing returns curve. More bang for the buck. The tricky thing, of course, is to persuade or bribe them.[/quote]

Okay, I agree with this as well.

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]What are the ECONOMIC benefits of AB32?[/quote]

Are economic benefits the only metric we use to determine if something is worthwhile? What about health benefits, or quality of life benefits? Are those worth nothing?

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]What are the ECONOMIC benefits of AB32?[/quote]

Are economic benefits the only metric we use to determine if something is worthwhile? What about health benefits, or quality of life benefits? Are those worth nothing?

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]What are the ECONOMIC benefits of AB32?[/quote]

Are economic benefits the only metric we use to determine if something is worthwhile? What about health benefits, or quality of life benefits? Are those worth nothing?

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]What are the ECONOMIC benefits of AB32?[/quote]

Are economic benefits the only metric we use to determine if something is worthwhile? What about health benefits, or quality of life benefits? Are those worth nothing?

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]What are the ECONOMIC benefits of AB32?[/quote]

Are economic benefits the only metric we use to determine if something is worthwhile? What about health benefits, or quality of life benefits? Are those worth nothing?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=air_ogi]
And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?
[/quote]

Uh, isn’t most of eastern California ALREADY a desert? That’s the part of California I drive through to get to Vegas, right? Because I’m pretty sure its a desert, has always been a desert, and I don’t think global warming had anything to do with THAT.

I also don’t understand the “98% of scientists” being wrong quote. So, if only 2% are right, things are still f**ked up? Is there some significance attached to those 2%? As to the 30% of them being right: Where is this statistic derived from? I only ask because we’ve been treated to quite a few statistics regarding climate change and its effects, but, unfortunately, many of those statistics are either factually/substantively incorrect, or have been mis-used.

Case in point: The Himalayan ice caps were supposed to melt by 2035, according to the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As it turns out, that was a completely bogus claim and it brought to light some significant issues with the IPCC’s review and attribution process, in that that claim was culled from a non peer-reviewed report and it was not backed by any significant research.

My point is that there is much sound and fury surrounding climate change, but little in the form of meaningful statistics. Much like you throwing numbers about above. What do those numbers mean? Without supporting data (“In God We Trust. Everyone Else Bring Data”), this isn’t a discussion at all. Its a shouting match, and that accomplishes nothing other than scoring cheap, partisan points.

Rather than arguing the economic benefits, we need to argue the economic cost(s) and whether or not we can afford them.

I’d suggest buttressing your argument with actual statistics and data.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=air_ogi]
And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?
[/quote]

Uh, isn’t most of eastern California ALREADY a desert? That’s the part of California I drive through to get to Vegas, right? Because I’m pretty sure its a desert, has always been a desert, and I don’t think global warming had anything to do with THAT.

I also don’t understand the “98% of scientists” being wrong quote. So, if only 2% are right, things are still f**ked up? Is there some significance attached to those 2%? As to the 30% of them being right: Where is this statistic derived from? I only ask because we’ve been treated to quite a few statistics regarding climate change and its effects, but, unfortunately, many of those statistics are either factually/substantively incorrect, or have been mis-used.

Case in point: The Himalayan ice caps were supposed to melt by 2035, according to the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As it turns out, that was a completely bogus claim and it brought to light some significant issues with the IPCC’s review and attribution process, in that that claim was culled from a non peer-reviewed report and it was not backed by any significant research.

My point is that there is much sound and fury surrounding climate change, but little in the form of meaningful statistics. Much like you throwing numbers about above. What do those numbers mean? Without supporting data (“In God We Trust. Everyone Else Bring Data”), this isn’t a discussion at all. Its a shouting match, and that accomplishes nothing other than scoring cheap, partisan points.

Rather than arguing the economic benefits, we need to argue the economic cost(s) and whether or not we can afford them.

I’d suggest buttressing your argument with actual statistics and data.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=air_ogi]
And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?
[/quote]

Uh, isn’t most of eastern California ALREADY a desert? That’s the part of California I drive through to get to Vegas, right? Because I’m pretty sure its a desert, has always been a desert, and I don’t think global warming had anything to do with THAT.

I also don’t understand the “98% of scientists” being wrong quote. So, if only 2% are right, things are still f**ked up? Is there some significance attached to those 2%? As to the 30% of them being right: Where is this statistic derived from? I only ask because we’ve been treated to quite a few statistics regarding climate change and its effects, but, unfortunately, many of those statistics are either factually/substantively incorrect, or have been mis-used.

Case in point: The Himalayan ice caps were supposed to melt by 2035, according to the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As it turns out, that was a completely bogus claim and it brought to light some significant issues with the IPCC’s review and attribution process, in that that claim was culled from a non peer-reviewed report and it was not backed by any significant research.

My point is that there is much sound and fury surrounding climate change, but little in the form of meaningful statistics. Much like you throwing numbers about above. What do those numbers mean? Without supporting data (“In God We Trust. Everyone Else Bring Data”), this isn’t a discussion at all. Its a shouting match, and that accomplishes nothing other than scoring cheap, partisan points.

Rather than arguing the economic benefits, we need to argue the economic cost(s) and whether or not we can afford them.

I’d suggest buttressing your argument with actual statistics and data.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=air_ogi]
And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?
[/quote]

Uh, isn’t most of eastern California ALREADY a desert? That’s the part of California I drive through to get to Vegas, right? Because I’m pretty sure its a desert, has always been a desert, and I don’t think global warming had anything to do with THAT.

I also don’t understand the “98% of scientists” being wrong quote. So, if only 2% are right, things are still f**ked up? Is there some significance attached to those 2%? As to the 30% of them being right: Where is this statistic derived from? I only ask because we’ve been treated to quite a few statistics regarding climate change and its effects, but, unfortunately, many of those statistics are either factually/substantively incorrect, or have been mis-used.

Case in point: The Himalayan ice caps were supposed to melt by 2035, according to the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As it turns out, that was a completely bogus claim and it brought to light some significant issues with the IPCC’s review and attribution process, in that that claim was culled from a non peer-reviewed report and it was not backed by any significant research.

My point is that there is much sound and fury surrounding climate change, but little in the form of meaningful statistics. Much like you throwing numbers about above. What do those numbers mean? Without supporting data (“In God We Trust. Everyone Else Bring Data”), this isn’t a discussion at all. Its a shouting match, and that accomplishes nothing other than scoring cheap, partisan points.

Rather than arguing the economic benefits, we need to argue the economic cost(s) and whether or not we can afford them.

I’d suggest buttressing your argument with actual statistics and data.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=air_ogi]
And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?
[/quote]

Uh, isn’t most of eastern California ALREADY a desert? That’s the part of California I drive through to get to Vegas, right? Because I’m pretty sure its a desert, has always been a desert, and I don’t think global warming had anything to do with THAT.

I also don’t understand the “98% of scientists” being wrong quote. So, if only 2% are right, things are still f**ked up? Is there some significance attached to those 2%? As to the 30% of them being right: Where is this statistic derived from? I only ask because we’ve been treated to quite a few statistics regarding climate change and its effects, but, unfortunately, many of those statistics are either factually/substantively incorrect, or have been mis-used.

Case in point: The Himalayan ice caps were supposed to melt by 2035, according to the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As it turns out, that was a completely bogus claim and it brought to light some significant issues with the IPCC’s review and attribution process, in that that claim was culled from a non peer-reviewed report and it was not backed by any significant research.

My point is that there is much sound and fury surrounding climate change, but little in the form of meaningful statistics. Much like you throwing numbers about above. What do those numbers mean? Without supporting data (“In God We Trust. Everyone Else Bring Data”), this isn’t a discussion at all. Its a shouting match, and that accomplishes nothing other than scoring cheap, partisan points.

Rather than arguing the economic benefits, we need to argue the economic cost(s) and whether or not we can afford them.

I’d suggest buttressing your argument with actual statistics and data.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz]What are the ECONOMIC benefits of AB32?[/quote]

Are economic benefits the only metric we use to determine if something is worthwhile? What about health benefits, or quality of life benefits? Are those worth nothing?[/quote]

CAR: While I think you make an excellent point, I think its also fair to ask what this will really cost.

Being a California kid myself, and growing up during the 1970s in the Bay Area, I too remember how truly crappy the air quality was. While we didn’t it have nearly as bad as Los Angeles or the Valley, I remember those Stage 1 alerts vividly and the dreaded “inversion layer” (we actually had a few days off school due to extremely bad air quality).

So, I would never argue over achieving better air quality, but as EconProf points out, the costs are becoming truly prohibitive. And, in attempting to have a meaningful dialogue, you find yourself being shouted down by the Lunatic Left, which treats every question as religious heresy. As Katie Couric (that journalistic giant) opined: “The science is settled”. Well, no, it isn’t. There’s no such friggin’ thing. We’re still debating issues that date back hundreds of years, as new data, techniques and technologies drive things forward.

I’d like to see real data, real costs and real benefits and then have a discussion based on that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz]What are the ECONOMIC benefits of AB32?[/quote]

Are economic benefits the only metric we use to determine if something is worthwhile? What about health benefits, or quality of life benefits? Are those worth nothing?[/quote]

CAR: While I think you make an excellent point, I think its also fair to ask what this will really cost.

Being a California kid myself, and growing up during the 1970s in the Bay Area, I too remember how truly crappy the air quality was. While we didn’t it have nearly as bad as Los Angeles or the Valley, I remember those Stage 1 alerts vividly and the dreaded “inversion layer” (we actually had a few days off school due to extremely bad air quality).

So, I would never argue over achieving better air quality, but as EconProf points out, the costs are becoming truly prohibitive. And, in attempting to have a meaningful dialogue, you find yourself being shouted down by the Lunatic Left, which treats every question as religious heresy. As Katie Couric (that journalistic giant) opined: “The science is settled”. Well, no, it isn’t. There’s no such friggin’ thing. We’re still debating issues that date back hundreds of years, as new data, techniques and technologies drive things forward.

I’d like to see real data, real costs and real benefits and then have a discussion based on that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz]What are the ECONOMIC benefits of AB32?[/quote]

Are economic benefits the only metric we use to determine if something is worthwhile? What about health benefits, or quality of life benefits? Are those worth nothing?[/quote]

CAR: While I think you make an excellent point, I think its also fair to ask what this will really cost.

Being a California kid myself, and growing up during the 1970s in the Bay Area, I too remember how truly crappy the air quality was. While we didn’t it have nearly as bad as Los Angeles or the Valley, I remember those Stage 1 alerts vividly and the dreaded “inversion layer” (we actually had a few days off school due to extremely bad air quality).

So, I would never argue over achieving better air quality, but as EconProf points out, the costs are becoming truly prohibitive. And, in attempting to have a meaningful dialogue, you find yourself being shouted down by the Lunatic Left, which treats every question as religious heresy. As Katie Couric (that journalistic giant) opined: “The science is settled”. Well, no, it isn’t. There’s no such friggin’ thing. We’re still debating issues that date back hundreds of years, as new data, techniques and technologies drive things forward.

I’d like to see real data, real costs and real benefits and then have a discussion based on that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jstoesz]What are the ECONOMIC benefits of AB32?[/quote]

Are economic benefits the only metric we use to determine if something is worthwhile? What about health benefits, or quality of life benefits? Are those worth nothing?[/quote]

CAR: While I think you make an excellent point, I think its also fair to ask what this will really cost.

Being a California kid myself, and growing up during the 1970s in the Bay Area, I too remember how truly crappy the air quality was. While we didn’t it have nearly as bad as Los Angeles or the Valley, I remember those Stage 1 alerts vividly and the dreaded “inversion layer” (we actually had a few days off school due to extremely bad air quality).

So, I would never argue over achieving better air quality, but as EconProf points out, the costs are becoming truly prohibitive. And, in attempting to have a meaningful dialogue, you find yourself being shouted down by the Lunatic Left, which treats every question as religious heresy. As Katie Couric (that journalistic giant) opined: “The science is settled”. Well, no, it isn’t. There’s no such friggin’ thing. We’re still debating issues that date back hundreds of years, as new data, techniques and technologies drive things forward.

I’d like to see real data, real costs and real benefits and then have a discussion based on that.

[Author]

Posts