New green jobs thanks to AB32? Not here. (oil, projects)

[native56]

Extremely well put. And that is the green jobs movement in a nutshell. Kill 100 existing jobs with high costs and regulations and replace the 100 jobs with 1 green job. And the one green job is taxpayer subsidized!

[Oerdin]

AB32 does give an incentive for companies to adopt the most efficient methods possible and those efficiency gains will translate into jobs (either not being lost or being gained). That said, AB32 hasn't taken effect so it's hard to blame it for a company deciding not to expand yet. Also it is still damn hard to compete in manufacturing with Chinese companies literally paying workers $0.87 per hour (that's the average industrial wage in China right now).

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by ZhugeLiang

AB32, killing off up to two million jobs to create a few hundred subsidized by taxpayers, now that's progress.

Others have posted this before but there will be no "2 million jobs lost!!!" and "Teh gas will be $9 a gallon!!!!11111ONE" as people like you have claimed.

Here's an independent study for you.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen...ess-report.pdf

At those carbon prices, we project cap and trade under AB 32 will increase prices in 2020 by:
< 0.7 cents per kWh (5%) and by 1.9 cents per kWh (12%) for electricity in the Conservative Case and Extreme Case, respectively;
<15 cents per therm (12%) and by 30 cents per therm (25%) for natural gas in the Conservative and Extreme cases;
<35 cents per gallon (8%) and by 53 cents per gallon (12%) for transportation fuel in the Conservative and Extreme cases.
(...)
Under this approach, AB 32 will increase small business energy-related expenses relative to revenue by, at most, 1.3 percentage points in the Conservative Case and 3.9 points in the Extreme Case. The average estimated increases are even less: at just 0.3 percentage points in the Conservative Case and at 0.9 points in the Extreme Case. So, for example, AB 32 will increase the energy costs of small businesses in the Air Transportation sector (the most energy-intensive sector) by 1.0 percentage point, from 12.3% of revenue to 13.3%, in the Conservative Case. In the Extreme Case, energy-related costs in that sector will increase by 3.9 points (also from 12.3% of revenue) to 16.2%. However, that sector accounts for just 0.1% of small business employment in California.
(...)
we concretely illustrate, using a case study approach, how AB 32 might affect energy-related costs, energy use, and the resulting performance of an actual small business in California under the same Conservative Case and Extreme Case scenarios... Within the restaurant sector, we identified and selected an upscale, Mexican restaurant located in Los Angeles named the Border Grill. ... In the Conservative Case, we assume the Border Grill fully passes-through this cost increase to its customers via price increases. The associated price increases are so small as to be almost unnoticeable to customers. The entire cost impact of AB 32 by 2020 can be completely offset by price increases of just 7 cents to the average ($51) dinner bill.

[jkbatca]

Originally Posted by Oerdin

Others have posted this before but there will be no "2 million jobs lost!!!" and "Teh gas will be $9 a gallon!!!!11111ONE" as people like you have claimed.

Here's an independent study for you.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen...ess-report.pdf

[/font][/font][/font][/font][/font][/font][/font][/font][/font][/font][/font][/font]

Some choice quotes from the study

Fourth, as is typically the case when all competitors experience the same increase in energy prices, as they will
under AB 32, we expect the moderate cost increases to be passed through to consumers. Because of the
products and services they sell, the vast majority of small businesses in California are subject to limited
competition from businesses outside of California, who are beyond the reach of AB 32. For this reason, most
small businesses will be able to pass through to their customers at least part of any cost increases due to AB 32
via slight price increases.

So let me get this straight. The reason AB32 costs will not affect small businesses is that they will just pass these costs onto the consumer? <sarcasm>Nice study...</sarcasm>

The impact of the LCFS is more difficult to estimate. We used the information in the latest ARB analysis as a
basis for developing an alternative estimate of the potential impact of the LCFS

So much for this being an independent study. Whatever they don't parrot from CARB for LCFS, they are just pulling numbers out of their butt. I'm saying this because most who have attempted to analyze the economic impact of LCFS concluded there are too many unknowns.

[OC Investor2]

Originally Posted by jkbatca

Some choice quotes from the study

So let me get this straight. The reason AB32 costs will not affect small businesses is that they will just pass these costs onto the consumer? <sarcasm>Nice study...</sarcasm>

So much for this being an independent study. Whatever they don't parrot from CARB for LCFS, they are just pulling numbers out of their butt. I'm saying this because most who have attempted to analyze the economic impact of LCFS concluded there are too many unknowns.

So the study cited by a supporter of AB 32 basically says AB-32 wil increase cost of living for all residents (That who the costs get passed on to) and devesate medium and large business that are not in the service sector - i.e manufacturing. So why would a green jobs company making, say, solar panels (or any other manufacturer) want to open a plant on CA?

All this law does is help create demand for clean energy products, its does nothing to ensure the supply of them will come from CA.

So CA will continue to degenerate into a economy with a few wealthy professionals in the creative class, a big pool of poorly paid service sector workers, and a small middle class made up of Gov't employees. That sounds real wonderful....

Of course the same people who support AB 32 will be back to complain about "income inequality" in a few years to....

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by jkbatca

Some choice quotes from the study

So let me get this straight. The reason AB32 costs will not affect small businesses is that they will just pass these costs onto the consumer? <sarcasm>Nice study...</sarcasm>

Yes, an average of $0.07 on a $51 bill. OMG! End of the world!

The reason for posting that independent study was to debunk the claims some people here have made that "2 million jobs will be lost!" & "Teh gas will be $9!!!!". Sorry, but that alarmist nonsense has no basis in reality.

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by OC Investor2

So the study cited by a supporter of AB 32 basically says AB-32 wil increase cost of living for all residents (That who the costs get passed on to) and devesate medium and large business that are not in the service sector

You're not very good at this reading thing are you? It's pretty much a zero sum game economically speaking since it incentivizes increased efficiency and that increased efficiency lowers costs.

Originally Posted by OC Investor2

All this law does is help create demand for clean energy products, its does nothing to ensure the supply of them will come from CA.

This is some what true but just like Toyota and BMW decided to relocate manufacturing to save on transportation costs and currency trading risks so too will we see successful foreign companies wanting to be closer to their biggest customers. That's just a natural part of the capitalist business system. Personally, I don't care if it is a Chinese company, a Danish company, or an American company which produces these items as long as we get utility out of them which is economically justified and efficiency goes up.

[killer2021]

Originally Posted by Oerdin

Yes, an average of $0.07 on a $51 bill. OMG! End of the world!

The reason for posting that independent study was to debunk the claims some people here have made that "2 million jobs will be lost!" & "Teh gas will be $9!!!!". Sorry, but that alarmist nonsense has no basis in reality.

highly doubt it will be a .07 cent increase. Also if you are a large consumer of fossil fuels then those businesses will have more stress placed on them. Businesses are in it to make a profit and if they can make more money elsewhere, then thats where they will go. At least thats how I run my business lol. My business is my baby, I go where my baby will grow the best.

[OC Investor2]

Originally Posted by Oerdin

Yes, an average of $0.07 on a $51 bill. OMG! End of the world!

The reason for posting that independent study was to debunk the claims some people here have made that "2 million jobs will be lost!" & "Teh gas will be $9!!!!". Sorry, but that alarmist nonsense has no basis in reality.

Your "independent study" is from the Union of Concerned Scientists a well know left leaning group that has received millions in grants to study climate change and advance enviromental causes.

Nice try

(See - I am good at reading....)

[jkbatca]

Originally Posted by OC Investor2

Your "independent study" is from the Union of Concerned Scientists a well know left leaning group that has received millions in grants to study climate change and advance enviromental causes.

Nice try

Exactly. Honest reports don't minimize the impact, or at least they say there isn't enough information to say what the impact will be.

Also, note how there was no response to the LCFS either. Don't let anyone BS you and say LCFS will not have any economic impact. Just look at what CARB has done to CA gas prices in the past as an indicator for what is to come. Take ULSF for example, quote from Wikipedia:

The transition to ULSD is not without substantial costs. The US Government has estimated that pump prices for diesel fuel will increase between $.05 and $.25 per gallon as a result of the transition. And, according to the American Petroleum Institute, the domestic refining industry has invested over $8 Billion to comply with the new regulations.

And this increase is across the whole United States!!! LCFS is a California ONLY formulation. The same cost to reformulate will have to be absorbed by only ONE state.