As California recovers from wildfires, a study by researchers at University of California-Berkeley finds that global warming will have a broad and devastating impact on California's economy over the next century.
The study looks into how houses, roads and bridges, the water supply, agriculture and public health will be affected by climate change. It concludes that in real estate alone, up to $2.5 trillion of the state's $4 trillion worth of homes and other buildings are at risk from rising sea levels, wildfires and other extreme weather events occurring as the world gets warmer. In transportation, there's a $500 billion risk to ports, airports, roads and bridges.
"The most expensive thing we can do about climate change is nothing," says one of the researchers, agricultural and resource economics professor David Roland-Holst.
In another study, Roland-Holst estimates that California's plan to reduce greenhouse gases could create 400,000 new jobs and increase household incomes by up to $48 billion annually by 2020. California has saved about $56 billion in electricity costs and created 1.5 million jobs over 35 years by using energy more efficiently than other states, according to the study.
"Energy efficiency is very good for real incomes, purchasing power and job creation," says Roland-Holst. "Energy efficiency has really helped us stimulate the economy."
On 17 November, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger issued an executive order to increase renewable energy in the state to 33% by 2020. Measures include a property tax exclusion for solar panel energy (AB 1451), incentives for clean-tech and green-tech companies (AB 2267), and utility bill credits for surplus renewable electricity (AB 2466).
Meanwhile, the Air Resources Board, California’s regulator of emissions, has been proposing a number of policies, using various policy instruments, including cap-and-trade, standards and feebates:
- Emissions trading
- Raising water fees, with some rebates on water conservation
- Stricter standards for utilities
- Stricter standards for car emissions
- Fees on gas guzzlers, with rebates on cleaner cars
- Fees on high emission appliances, with some rebates on energy-efficient items
(1) The program will allow low-polluting businesses to sell credits to businesses that are not. California already takes part in the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), which has announced a cap-and-trade program covering seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. In a separate move, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., introduced legislation calling for a federal cap-and-trade program in line with Obama's proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050. These programs may be harmonized and joined into programs abroad, such as the European Union's Emission Trading Scheme.
(2) The air board is studying a water fee to raise between $100 million and $500 million annually. The thinking is that it takes a lot of energy, thus high greenhouse gas emissions, to move water to farms, businesses and homes. Such a fee is not unprecedented. For example, the state collects 19 cents a month from San Diego Gas & Electric Co. customers, some of which is plowed back into programs to encourage conservation. The new water fee could be used to accomplish similar goals, regulators say.
(3) Stricter standards for utilities will require them to obtain 33% of electricity from renewables, in line with Schwarzenegger's executive order. Furthermore, the Bush administration has shielded coal- and oil-fired power plants from regulations on emissions of mercury and other hazardous substances. President Obama is expected to grant authority to the states to enact such regulations.
(4 and 5) Until now, the Bush administration and the Detroit Big Three car manufacturers have stopped stricter regulations of car emissions. President Obama is expected to grant authority to the states to enact such regulations. The Air Resources Board has held a series of workshops and meetings on vehicle feebates. Research on the issue was done by the University of California.
(6) Fees on appliances could raise $300 million to $1 billion, by taxing products associated with high emissions, such as refrigerants and insulation; a portion of the proceeds is proposed to fund a rebate plan, encouraging consumers to purchase energy-efficient appliances.
The Air Resources Board's proposals will be voted on next month. Specifics, including detailed regulations, financial incentives and fees, will still need to be hammered out among regulators and lawmakers in time for a 2012 launch.
Links:
Emissions plan calls for tougher rules, fees - SignOnSanDiego.com
California’s Air Resources Board - Air Resources Board
Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan - Air Resources Board (October 2008)
Fire damage tallied at almost $150 million - MercuryNews
California gets dire warning on global warming - MercuryNews
Governor Schwarzenegger Advances State's Renewable Energy Development
Report: California saves money by saving energy - San Francisco Chronicle
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 24
Here in Canberra, Australia, stamp duty for new light vehicles now differs depending on their rating, based on carbon dioxide emissions and air pollution. Vehicles with a good environmental performance receive a duty discount, while vehicles with the best rating pay no stamp duty at all. Vehicles with below average environmental performance will now pay more. For more details, see Green Vehicle Stamp Duty.
To solve the problem we must change the nature of our money. Please see
www.nopom.info
for a solution.
As California recovers from wildfires, a study by researchers at University of California-Berkeley finds that global warming will have a broad and devastating impact on California's economy over the next century.
We just started a Century and for sure this article is mot about 2100s.
Therefore, my conclusion is that such an article has been prepared some 9 years ago and by lack of political courage has been kept in the drawers up to now.
How come? Afraid to lose job? Or afraid to be waterboarded?
The article is great but out of time due to this I badly rate it.
And you can add to that the snow pack in the Sierras will be less in every future year, therefore, water will need to be taken from the ocean, making water much more expensive.
This is important, we should respond by carefully considering the alternatives. Personally, I'm convinced that feebates are most efficient in facilitating the shifts we need.
I don't agree that the actions in CA will not have any effect. Many states, like mine, are following their lead, adopting the more restrictive auto standards (or trying to, though Bush's cronies are holding it up for now). California is the only market large enough to bring economies of scale to the next generation of energy efficient technologies, and prove that the policies can be implemented. Then there's the exposure and peer pressure to change the perception of what is standard practice. We have to start somewhere, if we don't push for what is politically achievable now and prove it, we may never get the chance to implement the truly revolutionary changes that will be needed to bring sustainable change.
Gilbert, he said *over* the next century, meaning starting now and continuing for a hundred years, not an honest reason to slam the article.
It is heartening to see them moving forward in spite of the tough times, and good to see the true economic payback considered. People often cry about the high cost of changing our energy direction, and want to see the payback, but when you compare the cost of inaction- or ill considered action- it makes sense to 'coerce' investments in sustainable practices immediately.
Thanks Sam for the good article and news!
It's highly irritating to hear them spew that idiocy...
Yes... if market capitalism were to work as some sort 'natural system'... then it might work that way...
But...
In natural systems then... things go extinct ...
Ok... so... the big three can go extinct because they didn't have what it took to match what the 'environment' had to throw at it...
But to carry the idea further... companies can go extinct... industries can go extinct... countries can go extinct ... a species can go extinct...
and yes ... that is part of the system... there are others that come up and take their places ...
But...
do we want to be that extinct country?
that extinct species???
The thing is... as a species... we have the ability to have Foresight, analysis, and judgment...
So the GARBAGE about "oh we gave people what we want with these big cars and truck; that's how markets work and we have to let markets work and that's how they work best... blah blah blah blah blah..." is indeed a bunch of HOOOHAAA ...
Because the system we have now doesn't even do that... It DOES have regulations for good reasons...
What they (the auto companies) are not saying out of the other side of their mouths is that they are playing the markets (the general population) for greed... Maximizing profits regardless of the long term implications (implications not just of the money books, but of the viability of the market itself and its underpinnings) ...
We, humans, have the ability of foresight and analysis and we need to use that ability...
Nicely done Sam...
Best,
DJE
Good point, Richard, we do need to plan for desalination plants, which also means that we need to plan for increasing demand for electricity. We further need to plan for increased demand for electricity to facilitate the shift to electric vehicles, hydrogen-powered ships, electric heating, electric arc furnaces, clean concrete, pyrolysis of organic waste, CO2 capture from ambient air, greenhouses, and further changes that will come about as we seek to reduce greenhouse gases.
I realize that the keynote of you comment is not political, it is simply the idea that climate change is going to cost us more than the effort to fight it could ever cost us. Anyone with eyes to see can see that. Yet so many refuse to open those eyes.
Letting California set its own CAFE standards violates the Commerce Clause however by trying to regulate what is crossing state lines. California has no auto manufacturers but if it does make these dictates mandatory with the Obama administration's blessing, it will affect industries across the country.
Using tax policy to push citizen behavior into paths selected for it by government is wrong too. Picking winners and losers that way has made our tax code the bane of all Americans and caused trillions in lost or misdirected funds that could have been invested or better spent by those taxed.
Anyway, the governor of California might be working on trying to keep local industries/people from fleeing the state in such large numbers. Despite illegal immigrant inflow, the state is losing population. People are fleeing because of excessive taxation and regulation, movements like he is proposing will cause the bleeding to explode instead.
British Columbia just joined California's court challenge on this issue. I'm convinced that your opinion wouldn't hold up in court, Charles. I'm also convinced that Obama will replace the head of the EPA in January, granting a waiver to California to go ahead with stricter emission standards.
Charles: "Using tax policy to push citizen behavior into paths selected for it by government is wrong too. Picking winners and losers that way has made our tax code the bane of all Americans and caused trillions in lost or misdirected funds that could have been invested or better spent by those taxed."
To get cleaner cars, feebates are more efficient than standards. Fees on gas guzzlers can fund rebates on cleaner cars, so the policy can be budget-neutral. Government shouldn't pick winners, but merely insist that rebates go to cars with the least emissions - market mechanisms can further sort out what works best. If you're concerned that government would abuse its position, then you should agree with my proposals to act on global warming by implementing feebates, i.e. fees on specific pollution with the proceeds each time used to fund local rebates on better alternatives.
You have the wrong ideas about what is good and bad, Charles. It's wrong for someone to pollute and inflict harm on others. It's worse when government shields such a polluter out of ignorance, but the worst case is when corrupt politicians support polluters for personal gain.
Charles: "Anyway, the governor of California might be working on trying to keep local industries/people from fleeing the state in such large numbers. Despite illegal immigrant inflow, the state is losing population. People are fleeing because of excessive taxation and regulation, movements like he is proposing will cause the bleeding to explode instead."
Look at where eight years of Bush administration has got us, Charles. We're borrowing money to buy oil in the Middle East. On top of that, we're paying the cost of military operations to maintain such unsustainable activities. In 2000 the combined stock market value of Ford and GM was more than $130bn. Now it is nearer $10bn. Since 2006, the Big Three Detroit-based manufacturers - General Motors, Ford and Chrysler - have cut more than 100,000 jobs and they're still not making smaller, cleaner cars, despite receiving $25 billion in federally subsidized loans that were included in the 2007 energy bill for retooling auto plants to produce fuel-efficient cars. The Big Three now plan to close 35 plants, mostly around Detroit, with a loss of 100,000 jobs.
A shift to clean energy will result in many new jobs, in areas like renewable energy, upgrading the electric grid, construction, transport, etc. Many jobs will be in new technologies such as batteries for electric cars, fuel cells, recharging points, V2G-technology, etc.
Here's the California Air Resources Board's press release and the scoping plan.
In California, televisions (along with DVRs, DVD players, and cable/satellite boxes) now consume about 10% of a home's electricity.
A study by the California Energy Commission had found that the U.S. EPA's voluntary Energy Star® Program for televisions would only obtain 35% of the calculated $8.1 billion in energy efficiency for the consumer that was calculated for the proposed efficiency standards.