California Goes Back to the Future
Ah, the Golden State, a land that makes even the most stalwart conservative rethink federalism. As Cassandra Sweet reports in the Wall Street Journal:
California regulators late Thursday adopted the first large-scale cap-and-trade program in the U.S., in a move officials say will protect the environment without hurting the state's still-struggling economy.
...
California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 requires the state to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In addition to the proposed cap-and-trade program, the state has established an aggressive renewable-energy mandate and a requirement that the carbon content of the state's vehicle fuels be cut by 10% by 2020, as part of efforts to achieve the emissions-reduction goal.
The only problem? The state is expected to have added 15 million people during that 30 year period from 1990 to 2020. This delusion masquerading as ambition calls to mind Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous comparison of American education goals to Soviet grain quotas. But that's what we do in California: fiction, by acclamation.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: California Goes Back to the Future
Hey, hey, hey! We're not the only ones.
At least we're not asking all the other states to subsidize our ethanol producers - hearty Iowa and Indiana family corn farmers like, um, Richard Branson, George Soros, Conagra and the Carlye Group.
Dec '10
Re: California Goes Back to the Future
From Orwell's 1984:
"The essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty."
I know the Left believes in global warming, but what scares me is the unwillingness (or inability) to acknowledge that they might be wrong. There is no self-evaluation. You come to site like Ricochet and you hear a diversity of thought and discourse. People challenging each other and each other's ideas. Liberals frequently ignore certain unalterable facts, regularly ignore common sense, and yet maintain the same "firmness of purpose" that a man who has just eaten ice cream has in declaring afterward that ice cream does in fact exist.
I don't mean to do the typical "rag on lib's" shtick conservatives on the inter-web are known for, but a story like this - a state in as much trouble as CA is lowering their shoulder into a fiscal wall for the sake of ideology - boggles the mind. It's scary, actually.
Aug '10
Re: California Goes Back to the Future
Having lived 30 of my 36 years in California the decision has been made to reduce California's carbon footprint and increase its sustainability so my family has decided to flee the golden state. Hasta La Vista Baby. I think the Governator said that in one of his amazing acting moments.
Jul '10
Re: California Goes Back to the Future
How is California going to add 30 million new residents by 2040 if the economy is shot? It seems to me that the state is going to have to go to five-year plans to pull this off. Agricultural collectives and reviving the Trabant automobile works are possibilities that should not be overlooked.
May '10
Re: California Goes Back to the Future
This can only amplify the problems Victor wrote about earlier in the week at NRO. Eventually California will be a few islands of wealth (Sacramento foremost among them) surrounded by a third-world country.
If anything, this would prove that federalism works - unless the federal government continues bailing California out while letting them continue their fiscal insanity.
Sep '10
Re: California Goes Back to the Future
We need a bar chart showing California's population vs. the combined populations of India, China and Indonesia. We're fighting carbon emissions and they're not. This is just pointless, childish posturing.
Nov '10
Re: California Goes Back to the Future
The issue is that there is precious little that we can do about California. Until the doctrinaire progressives and public sector unions that run this state have milked the general populous dry and those with any sense pack up and run for the exits, nothing much will change.
For the majority, I believe, it is the frog in the heating pot metaphor.
Edited on Dec 18, 2010 at 11:44amMay '10
Re: California Goes Back to the Future
K T Cat: We need a bar chart showing California's population vs. the combined populations of India, China and Indonesia. We're fighting carbon emissions and they're not. This is just pointless, childish posturing. · Dec 18 at 8:20am
Here you go- not just California, but all of the US and Europe vs. China and India- the comparison, as you point out, is ludicrous. We could all disappear tomorrow and it would make no difference whatever:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588673072577680.html
Dec '10
Re: California Goes Back to the Future
Actually the only problem is that the “wealth redistribution” occasioned by the imposition of cap and trade in California was mishandled by misallocation of the carbon credits. The carbon credits should be allocated to individuals to be “paid” for consumption of carbon at the point of sale. Businesses could then acquire the carbon credits they need by selling goods to Californians.
The hypothetical, assume 10 Californians and 100 units of carbon-- the system should give each Californian the right in perpetuity ( like a property deed) to 10 units of carbon consumption per year. To purchase food, you would pay cash, plus required carbon credits. To purchase house paint, you would pay cash plus carbon credits. To obtain medical care you would produce your Obama Care Insurance card and carbon credits. The same for all other goods.
If another person moved to California, they coul purchase carbon credits from the first 10. If a business wanted to purchase materials to manufacture things, they would have to obtain carbon credits from consumers. Carbon credits would move through the economy. Indeed, and conservatives should embrace this, carbon credits allocated in the first instance to individuals would operate exactly like a gold standard.