Clearly, it's not how many heavy-handed regulations and mandates and subsidies that a state imposes that defines it as a leader

No, Jerry, California Is NOT Leading

In a fiery speech to the American Geophysical Union conference, California Governor Brown continued his quest regarding climate change, but has apparently revealed a chink in his armor. He threatened incoming President Trump that California will go it’s own way if the Feds reconfigure national climate policy. Insisting that climate change remains the greatest existential threat to mankind, he insists the Paris accord be upheld and that other US States follow “California’s lead.” California’s Governor Brown and other elected leaders insist California exhibits model behavior. But as a successful business man, Mr. Trump surely recognizes the difference between doing the right thing and doing the thing right. Putting aside for the time being whether reducing greenhouse gasses is ‘the right thing to do’ we focus here on whether government programs (from direct control to market-like actions such as carbon taxes) are “doing the thing right”. As the government’s own data shows, states with freer markets are performing better than states, like California, with heavy intervention and regulation when it comes to reducing greenhouse gasses. Relying more extensively, or exclusively, on the free market would provide a no regrets policy regardless of whether reducing greenhouse gasses are the right thing to do.

California’s Global Warming Solutions Act California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32) was signed in 2006 and includes a bevy of actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses to 1990 levels by 2020. It has recently been made more aggressive with emission targets now at 40% below 1990 levels to be reached by 2030. From 2006 through 2014, California carbon dioxide emissions dropped just under ten percent, from 398 to 361 million metric tons, according to the US Energy Information Administration. In a ranked list, California only comes in 24th out of the fifty states and D.C. Part of the reductions in California are due to reduced productive activity (manufacturing, farming) as AB32, high taxes and regulatory burdens, along with an overall shift in California economy moves CO2 emitting businesses elsewhere but doesn’t eliminate their emissions, through so called “leakage”. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is an effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont to cap and reduce CO 2 emissions from the electric power sector, much like California’s cap and trade program but limited to electric power. It started in 2009. The State of New York (but not so much residents) also claims moral superiority for its regulatory approach to carbon dioxide emissions. But, also like California, falls short in real performance. From 2009 through 2014, New York reduced emission by only a little over two percent.

Tennessee, Georgia and South Carolina have reduced carbon dioxide emissions more than in heavily regulated states Other states, more liberty oriented, like Tennessee, Georgia and South Carolina have reduced carbon dioxide emissions more than in heavily regulated states, by as much as 23% from 2006. Even in Texas, emissions have increased less than two percent, even while their economy has flourished; some of the increase is the aforementioned ‘leakage’ from California. Clearly, it’s not how many heavy-handed regulations and mandates and subsidies that a state imposes that defines it as a leader…it’s actual performance in achieving its goals. California is lacking and the government’s own data confirms that. Rather than just being a poseur, Mr. Brown should look to those other states that are actually reducing carbon dioxide better than California, adopt freer market approaches, and Make California Great Again.

Tom Tanton -- Bio and Archives Tom Tanton is Director of Science and Technology Assessment for the < a href=“https://eelegal.org/” rel=“nofollow”>Energy and Environment Legal Institute</a> and President of T2 & Associates an energy technology consulting firm. He has over forty years’ experience in energy technology and public policy, including both private and public sector responsibility.

{/exp:ce_cache:it}