Basically the only argument as to why we shouldn't reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is that it's too expensive. This is addressed in Myth #11 of the Global Warming Myths wiki. California is also proving this argument to be wrong.
In 2006 the California legislature passed AB32, which required greenhouse pollution to return to 1990 levels by 2020. They left it up to state regulatory agencies to come up with the details.
Governor Schwarzenegger followed with an executive order that requires an 80% reduction from 1990 levels in greenhouse pollution by 2050.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has been working to meet various statutory deadlines for the reduction plan. Its proposed plan will be released next month (October). As part of the process, it has made estimates of the economic costs and benefits of its plans, and it released those estimates last week:
These estimates indicated that the overall savings from improved efficiency and developing alternatives to petroleum will, on the whole, outweigh the costs.
There were two economic estimates prepared, one using CARB’s Environmental Dynamic Revenue Assessment Model (E-DRAM), and another done by U.C. Berkeley: Berkeley Energy and Resources (BEAR) model.
In the BEAR model, Real Output, Gross State Product, and Employment all rose under the proposed changes, compared to business as usual. Carbon Emissions fell significantly, while Personal Income fell 0.2%. The E-DRAM results were similar, except that Personal Income rose by 2.8% in that model.
By reducing the state's CO2 emissions, California is putting itself on a course to save money and create jobs, not to mention address the threat of global warming. Now we just need to get the rest of the country to follow our lead!
