XM MLB Chat: California cap and trade profiteers ignored 'the science,' and brought record unemployment and human suffering to millions

California's cap and trade system destroyed people whose only crime was being in the middle class.
As one economist noted, if state 'green' regulations were so smart and progressive, why did they need cap and trade? Answer: because it takes from the middle class and gives to everyone else.

"California's environmental vanguard approach is...in the midst of an economic downturn that has pushed

unemployment to recent records.

Many other states and the federal government are watching closely.

California's "climate change law" went into effect in 2006.

"Since 2007...

California has led the nation in job losses.

The regulations created

a cap-and-trade system,

It's become clear to nearly everyone that the plan's backers

have underestimated its negative impact and exaggerated the benefits....

The environmental plan was built on the notion that imposing some $23 billion of new taxes and fees on households (through higher electricity bills) and employers

will cost the economy nothing,

while also reducing greenhouse gases.

Almost no one believes that anymore except for the five members of the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

This is the state's air-quality regulator, which voted unanimously in December to stick with the cap-and-trade system despite the recession.

CARB justified its go-ahead by issuing what almost all experts agree is

a rigged study on the economic impact of the cap-and-trade system.

The study concludes that the plan "will not only significantly reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions, but

will also have a net positive effect on California's economic growth through 2020."...

The state finally discovered a do-good policy that pays for itself. ...

But there was a problem.

The CARB had commissioned five economists from around the country to critique this study. They panned it.

Harvard's Robert Stavins, chairman of the federal Environmental Protection Agency's economic advisory committee under Bill Clinton, told me that "None of us knew who the other reviewers were,

but we all came up with almost the same conclusion.
The report was severely flawed and systematically underestimated costs."...

Mr. Stavins points out that if these regulations are a net boon for businesses and the economy, "why would you need to impose regulations like cap and trade?"

The Sacramento Bee, which has editorialized in support of the new regulations, was aghast at CARB's twisted science.

We have to "be candid about the real costs of the transition," a cautionary editorial advised. "Energy prices will rise, and major capital investment will be needed in public transit and new transmission lines. Industries that are energy intensive

will move elsewhere."

The green lobby has lectured us for years that global warming is all about the sanctity of science. Those who question the "scientific consensus" on catastrophic atmospheric changes