Posted on 05/07/2007 8:26:04 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
SACRAMENTO – Business leaders have warned repeatedly that companies and consumers will pay a high price in return for lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Few alarms, however, have been sounded over the potential ongoing cost to taxpayers.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has asked the Legislature to approve 126 new specialists and $36 million to ramp up California's historic campaign to slow global warming by cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The size and speed of the proposed hiring surge in response to a single piece of legislation is rare, likely unrivaled since California launched its disastrous energy deregulation scheme a decade ago.
Budget writers seem receptive to most of the governor's proposals to fund steps necessary to implement Assembly Bill 32, which went into effect Jan. 1. The landmark law would require a gradual rollback of greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, a 25 percent reduction.
In opening rounds of their reviews of the governor's 2007-08 spending plan, however, Democrats sharply questioned Schwarzenegger's centerpiece proposal that would offer businesses the ability to buy and sell pollution credits to minimize job losses and company shutdowns. They suspect his budget proposals are evidence he's stacking the final decision toward relying on incentives more than regulation to reduce emissions.
Funding early work on the incentive program, which is far from being put in place, also would “cannibalize” other pollution control accounts, Democrats contend.
“We're willing, for at least one year, to let them borrow the money. There will be no gift,” declared Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, who chairs a budget oversight subcommittee.
The governor's spending proposals in the 2007-08 budget build on his efforts to date. The administration previously committed millions of dollars, from adding staff to doling out grants, to address climate change initiatives. Thirty jobs were created and $30 million was set aside in 2006-07.
One of those posts went to Margret Kim, the governor's voice on climate change in China, which is considered one of the world's worst polluters. Under contract, Kim earns $4,850 a month in her half-time position based in Beijing.
State agencies also are hiring consultants. Most recently the Air Resources Board advertised for a contractor to “simulate and evaluate” proposals that would implement incentive programs to reduce emissions. The contract would top out at nearly $500,000 over two years. A separate proposal in the 2007-08 budget would set aside $700,000 for contractors to perform economic analyses and a public education campaign.
Schwarzenegger also has asked for $1 million to defend the state from a lawsuit filed by automakers opposed to stricter emissions standards.
But as the spending mounts, who pays remains a nagging question.
Schwarzenegger's proposed budget does not suggest new taxes or fees immediately. But his top environmental advisers have made it clear that in coming years the cost of reducing greenhouse gases will have to be shared by business, consumers and taxpayers.
“There will be a serious discussion about fees,” said Linda Adams, chief of the state's Environmental Protection Agency. Later, she added, “We need to establish the universe of who will pay. That will take some time.”
Catherine Witherspoon, executive officer of the state Air Resources Board, said any fee proposal will not be advanced until after the agency wraps up its work on mandatory emissions reporting and other steps needed to get the new law off the ground.
The funding mix is “an open question” before the entire administration, Witherspoon said.
“There is a lot of work to be done,” she said, “but we have been thinking about it.”
Witherspoon hinted that the Department of Motor Vehicles may be enlisted, perhaps to impose higher vehicle registration costs to spread out some of the responsibility.
“We need to think through equitability,” she said.
Business recoils at new fees or taxes, said Vince Sollitto, a spokesman for the California Chamber of Commerce.
“It is likely premature to discuss a funding mechanism for the regulatory regime that must be created since we don't know what it will be or how much it will cost,” Sollitto said. “We should always remember just one thing: We all contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and we all should contribute to the cost of their reduction.”
Democrats also appear determined to fund much of the climate change initiative by imposing mandatory registration fees on industries taking advantage of any incentives.
Republicans sitting on budget subcommittees are skeptical of the spending proposals and question whether California should be gambling with its economy while industrial countries like China and India continue to emit so much more greenhouse gas.
“We can't end up losing jobs,” said Sen. Mark Wyland, R-Solana Beach.
Assemblyman Jim Silva, R-Sunset Beach, said he has reservations about the governor's proposal to raid other accounts.
“We're going to have trouble managing our own budget this year, let alone adding new programs,” Silva said.
Silva said he wants to press the governor's aides for more details, saying their answers have been “very nebulous.”
“If this is going to be fee-driven, we have to know right up front,” said Silva, a former member of the South Coast Air Quality Management board.
The legislation, signed into law amid international fanfare, specifically authorizes the state to raise fees to pay for programs to reduce greenhouse gases.
Lawmakers are not the only ones to raise concerns. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office has outlined several potential shortcomings.
Most notably, the governor's funding proposal “is not sustainable in that it largely relies on a funding source – the Air Pollution Control Fund – that will be unavailable in future years unless corrective action, such as increasing fees, is taken,” according to the analyst's report.
Schwarzenegger's proposal to fund industry incentives, the report said, “is premature and contrary to legislative direction.”
Many scientists link greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from burning fossil fuels, to global warming. Left unchecked, severe climate changes could disrupt water and food supplies, as well as imperil the environment and wildlife.
Regardless of how funding disputes are resolved in the Capitol, Sen. Lowenthal said the public will have to accept the costs. The alternative – doing nothing – would result in “catastrophe,” he warned.
“This is just the beginning,” Lowenthal said. “There's going to have to be changes to every part of life. Ultimately, we will all pay.”
Background: California's landmark law to roll back greenhouse gas emissions believed to contribute to global warming took effect Jan. 1. The measure calls for reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, which means a 25 percent reduction.
What's changing: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to ramp up implementation of the law and is asking the Legislature to approve 126 new specialists and $36 million this year.
The future: Lawmakers will debate how to fund the program, with Democrats and some administrators considering fees on business and the governor and fellow Republicans opposed.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has asked the Legislature to approve 126 new specialists and $36 million to ramp up California’s historic campaign to slow global warming by cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The size and speed of the proposed hiring surge in response to a single piece of legislation is rare, likely unrivaled since California launched its disastrous energy deregulation scheme a decade ago.
Surge Surge Surge!!!
What madness.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Is that the ‘R’ word I hear being whispered in the FRont row?
Are that many voters here ready to go over the precipice with this Progressive TWirP?
Apparently so..
Asta la vista, California ,, it was nice knowing ya..
Last one out of Kal-ee-for-nee-a turn out the (compact fluorescent) lights.
I don’t know who foots Bill, but I can tell you who foots Dick Morris.. or is it who dicks Foot Morris...
This is all the outcome of complete and widespread ignorance of the laws of physics and the facts of chemistry, sealed with the signet of the SCOTUS, and promulgated by the MSM. CO2 has been pronounced “dirty”, and the reaction has been “let’s clean it up”.
You have to think of King Canute commanding the tide not to come in, but in that fable it was the King himself who understood that this was an impossibility. I don’t think Arnold fills the bill.
It’s all mysticism and sophistry!!!
Another classic from Grampa Dave, yessir!!!
Wussy Whipped Arnold is now a girlie boy.
I would say that it's sad, but what's really even sadder is how he took so many good, right thinking Californians in with all his original blowhard blunderbuss!!! (mis-interpreted by far too many as actually some sort of "conservative")
Hey EVERYBODY IN CA!!! Here comes Gray Davis' TRIPLE CAR TAX marching right back through Arnold's dubious GANG-GREENhouse gas law's door thrown wide open to it!!!
CA!!! Are you ready to rumble*??? Or are ya just gonna mumble and grumble??? (*aka "Recall")
Arnold will NOT support a higher TAX.
It is a FEE, not a TAX!
What is it with you Arnold haters that you cannot see the difference!?!?!?!?!
/FO
Now he's siding with silly little Hollyweird female scoff-laws who demonstrate a long and varied list of sexual acts for all to see on theinternut!!! (it's ok, though... Letterman loved it!!!)
Why? We didn't ask for it and we don't want it.
"Witherspoon hinted that the Department of Motor Vehicles may be enlisted, perhaps to impose higher vehicle registration costs to spread out some of the responsibility."
We can pretty much consider that "hint" a promise. Here's my promise: I'll sign a Recall petition.
How dare you “/” a former freeper with terminal shifferbranes syndrome???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.