Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
jstoesz
Participantok, I guess now commence the listing of studies…
http://suspendab32.org/AB_32_Report071309.pdf?d3734640
conclusion…
The total AB 32 cost of $182.649 billion in lost output is one and a half times the total
budget for the state of California. Given that the total gross state output of $1.8 trillion for
California in 2008, the total lost output from AB 32 costs to small businesses is almost
10%. Accordingly, the total cost of AB 32 is $49,691 per small business in California.Participantyeah I still don’t follow the analogy. Is oil refinery A doing appreciable harm to mom and pop shop B? Law enforcement protects against theft…but what theft is occurring here?
[quote]Oil refining is not the only business in California. I would bet that it doesn’t contribute to more than 0.01% of GDP.[/quote]
It is clearly not the only business, but a large percentage of businesses and nearly all of their consumers are dependent on energy…nearly every person in this state uses gasoline directly or indirectly. If costs for gasoline go up, then there is less money to spend on other things. (fewer jobs)
[quote] Solar power will be competitive with natural gas electricity by 2020. [/quote]
Sounds great! lets buy it in 2020…or we can make a law that mandates purchase of solar energy in proportion to its competitiveness with fossil fuels. Oh wait we already have that law, it is call the law of the free markets…
Participantyeah I still don’t follow the analogy. Is oil refinery A doing appreciable harm to mom and pop shop B? Law enforcement protects against theft…but what theft is occurring here?
[quote]Oil refining is not the only business in California. I would bet that it doesn’t contribute to more than 0.01% of GDP.[/quote]
It is clearly not the only business, but a large percentage of businesses and nearly all of their consumers are dependent on energy…nearly every person in this state uses gasoline directly or indirectly. If costs for gasoline go up, then there is less money to spend on other things. (fewer jobs)
[quote] Solar power will be competitive with natural gas electricity by 2020. [/quote]
Sounds great! lets buy it in 2020…or we can make a law that mandates purchase of solar energy in proportion to its competitiveness with fossil fuels. Oh wait we already have that law, it is call the law of the free markets…
Participantyeah I still don’t follow the analogy. Is oil refinery A doing appreciable harm to mom and pop shop B? Law enforcement protects against theft…but what theft is occurring here?
[quote]Oil refining is not the only business in California. I would bet that it doesn’t contribute to more than 0.01% of GDP.[/quote]
It is clearly not the only business, but a large percentage of businesses and nearly all of their consumers are dependent on energy…nearly every person in this state uses gasoline directly or indirectly. If costs for gasoline go up, then there is less money to spend on other things. (fewer jobs)
[quote] Solar power will be competitive with natural gas electricity by 2020. [/quote]
Sounds great! lets buy it in 2020…or we can make a law that mandates purchase of solar energy in proportion to its competitiveness with fossil fuels. Oh wait we already have that law, it is call the law of the free markets…
Participantyeah I still don’t follow the analogy. Is oil refinery A doing appreciable harm to mom and pop shop B? Law enforcement protects against theft…but what theft is occurring here?
[quote]Oil refining is not the only business in California. I would bet that it doesn’t contribute to more than 0.01% of GDP.[/quote]
It is clearly not the only business, but a large percentage of businesses and nearly all of their consumers are dependent on energy…nearly every person in this state uses gasoline directly or indirectly. If costs for gasoline go up, then there is less money to spend on other things. (fewer jobs)
[quote] Solar power will be competitive with natural gas electricity by 2020. [/quote]
Sounds great! lets buy it in 2020…or we can make a law that mandates purchase of solar energy in proportion to its competitiveness with fossil fuels. Oh wait we already have that law, it is call the law of the free markets…
Participantyeah I still don’t follow the analogy. Is oil refinery A doing appreciable harm to mom and pop shop B? Law enforcement protects against theft…but what theft is occurring here?
[quote]Oil refining is not the only business in California. I would bet that it doesn’t contribute to more than 0.01% of GDP.[/quote]
It is clearly not the only business, but a large percentage of businesses and nearly all of their consumers are dependent on energy…nearly every person in this state uses gasoline directly or indirectly. If costs for gasoline go up, then there is less money to spend on other things. (fewer jobs)
[quote] Solar power will be competitive with natural gas electricity by 2020. [/quote]
Sounds great! lets buy it in 2020…or we can make a law that mandates purchase of solar energy in proportion to its competitiveness with fossil fuels. Oh wait we already have that law, it is call the law of the free markets…
ParticipantI don’t follow your law enforcement analogy…please expound.
1-3 are adapting. There is no way for an oil refiner to pump out less CO2 and make a cheaper product (they would have done it if they could). There adaptation will cost more money. If you do not concede this, you are back to denying gravity. And there is no way to produce energy in mass and reliable quantities cheaper than fossil fuels. This will probably not always be true, but it is today (a la fewer jobs).
ParticipantI don’t follow your law enforcement analogy…please expound.
1-3 are adapting. There is no way for an oil refiner to pump out less CO2 and make a cheaper product (they would have done it if they could). There adaptation will cost more money. If you do not concede this, you are back to denying gravity. And there is no way to produce energy in mass and reliable quantities cheaper than fossil fuels. This will probably not always be true, but it is today (a la fewer jobs).
ParticipantI don’t follow your law enforcement analogy…please expound.
1-3 are adapting. There is no way for an oil refiner to pump out less CO2 and make a cheaper product (they would have done it if they could). There adaptation will cost more money. If you do not concede this, you are back to denying gravity. And there is no way to produce energy in mass and reliable quantities cheaper than fossil fuels. This will probably not always be true, but it is today (a la fewer jobs).
ParticipantI don’t follow your law enforcement analogy…please expound.
1-3 are adapting. There is no way for an oil refiner to pump out less CO2 and make a cheaper product (they would have done it if they could). There adaptation will cost more money. If you do not concede this, you are back to denying gravity. And there is no way to produce energy in mass and reliable quantities cheaper than fossil fuels. This will probably not always be true, but it is today (a la fewer jobs).
ParticipantI don’t follow your law enforcement analogy…please expound.
1-3 are adapting. There is no way for an oil refiner to pump out less CO2 and make a cheaper product (they would have done it if they could). There adaptation will cost more money. If you do not concede this, you are back to denying gravity. And there is no way to produce energy in mass and reliable quantities cheaper than fossil fuels. This will probably not always be true, but it is today (a la fewer jobs).
ParticipantI am just going to laugh here for a second…
[quote] people like you [/quote]
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.
ParticipantI am just going to laugh here for a second…
[quote] people like you [/quote]
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.
ParticipantI am just going to laugh here for a second…
[quote] people like you [/quote]
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.
-
AuthorPosts