Skip to content

Cap-and-Trade: Good for California?

Cap-and-Trade: Good for California?
Published:

Governor Schwarzenegger applauded the passage of a statewide cap and trade tax Tuesday, lauding the state’s Air Resources Board for drafting  “the nation’s first cap and trade program,” according to a statement  from the Governor’s Office. This is nothing that the governor should  be proud of.

Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming  Solutions Act of 2006, introduced by Fabian Nunez, blames individuals  and businesses for climate change, and seeks to punish all for the alleged  crimes against the earth. Like the 20x2020 challenge, AB 32 seeks to  impose artificial restrictions on California citizens. While the 20x2020  program, as signed into law earlier this month, will mandate that all  citizens must cut their water consumption by 20 percent by 2020, AB 32 mandates  that also by 2020, the California will have to reduce carbon emissions by 25 percent. How does AB 32 propose we drastically  cut down on emissions without harming businesses? With “green” solutions,  of course, to be determined at a later time. Coupled with this bill,  the governor also recently signed legislation to open the playing field  more for alternative fuel providers, despite the fact that gasoline  remains the most plentiful and readily available and affordable source  of fuel for the masses.

In a statement, the governor applauded  the drafting of the cap and trade program:  “California has led  the nation and the world in developing green policies and programs,  and we are continuing to take action with a first-in-the-nation cap-and-trade  program… I have no doubt the nation’s first cap-and-trade program  will also drive innovation and generate green jobs.” Schwarzenegger  also applauded the California Air Resources Control Board for “laying  the groundwork in developing a program with flexibility to achieve emission  reductions at lower costs.” At lower costs to whom? Certainly  not to business, which Schwarzenegger has claimed he wants to bring  back to the state. What business would come back to California, where  it would be taxed at a higher rate than surrounding states for being productive?

By taxing innovation and the much-maligned  big business, lawmakers are looking to put the squeeze on older industries  and instead favor up-and-coming green designations. Unfortunately green enthusiasts, the entire basis of the cap-and-trade  argument is now being undermined: more individuals are questioning whether  global warming is indeed man-made, or if global warming is indeed a  firm phenomenon itself. The recent news of leaked emails showing skepticism  on man-made global warming has been a damning indictment.

Cap-and-trade is just one more way  to tax and discourage innovation. Why a self-proclaimed Republican governor,  who made his own vast wealth working in business, would support such  a plan, defies reason.

Susannah Kopecky

News maven interested in politics, history, language, law, and information organization. Has contributed to numerous publications and served as copy editor and editor-in-chief for several news publications.

IVN is rated Center by AllSides and High Credibility by MBFC — follow our independent journalism in your feed.

Add IVN on Google

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.