NC Media Watch

A quest for reason and accuracy in letters to the editor, guest editorials and other issues of interest to the citizens of Western Nevada County.

Sunday, July 03, 2005

Governor, and the economic cost is?

I am for clean air, clean water and a strong economy, but our tax dollars will be better spent working to reduce traffic congestion and dependency on foreign oil, and not chasing solutions to global warming. The Governor disagrees.
Arnold Schwarzenegger: It's not a time for talk. It's a time for action
The Terminator: There's no doubt about the science. Now we must all gear our economies to take on global warming. Published in London’s Independent: 03 July 2005, details (here)

I launched our effort when California hosted the United Nations World Environment Day Conference in San Francisco last month, where leaders from around the world gathered to discuss our shared responsibility for protecting the earth. It was there that I signed an executive order to establish clear and ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our state: by the year 2010 our goal is to reduce our emissions to less than those we produced in 2000; by 2020 our goal is to make our emissions lower than 1990 levels; and by 2050 our goal is to reduce overall emissions to a full 80 per cent below those we produced in 1990.

Greenhouse gases are emitted from every sector of the economy, and these pollutants blanket the globe, trapping heat and creating the "greenhouse" effect, often referred to as global warming. Global warming threatens California's water supply, public health, agriculture, coastlines and forests - our entire economy and way of life.
The Governor failed to tell us what the economic cost is going to be. Consider these Kyoto emission facts from the European Union:
How is Europe responding to the challenge of global warming? With more global warming. That may seem incongruous given all of the EU's Kyoto hype, but take a look at the latest report from the European Environmental Agency on EU greenhouse gas emissions.
In it we learn that between 2002 and 2003 emissions have increased by 53 million tons, i.e. 1.3 percent, in the EU-15 after having fallen for two years in a row. Basically all of the reductions achieved in 2001 and 2002 have been lost. (More at TCS)
So, with EU emissions climbing the EU economy is still in the tank:
PARIS (Reuters) - Continental Europe's two biggest economies showed little sign of vibrancy in unemployment reports released on Thursday [June 30,2005], with a marginal dip in Germany and no real change in France, where household confidence unexpectedly slid.

Britain, which has enjoyed stronger expansion than the main euro zone countries for years, announced that first-quarter growth was lower than it first thought, cutting its quarterly rise to 0.4 from 0.5 percent initially.

The news was not all bad, however. The European Commission said the business climate improved for the first time this year in June and there were signs of better morale in the industrial and service sectors, although a preliminary Commission readout on inflation showed a June rise to 2.1 percent from 1.9 in May. Germany's seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment fell to 11.7 percent in June from 11.8 percent, and the jobless total in adjusted terms fell 23,000 to 4.858 million, the Labour office said.

France's jobless rate remained at 10.2 percent for a third month running, the Labour Ministry announced in a report which coincided with news from the statistics office that household confidence slid slightly in June.

"At best we are seeing a stabilization in the labor markets in both France and Germany," Audrey Childe-Freeman, an economist at CIBC World Markets in London, said. More (here).
If we are not careful, emission regulations, executive orders and economic arm twisting, could produce similar results in California. Do you want 10-12 percent unemployment? Could happen, as we attempt solve a problem over which we have no control.

.Click here for an e-mail comment


Post a Comment

<< Home