FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTROVERSY OVER ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CALIFORNIA’S CLIMATE LAW: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PROJECTIONS
CRS Provides First of its Kind Examination of Differing Economic Studies on Impact of AB 32 and Finds State Study is Consistent With Mainstream
CRS Communications Director
SAN FRANCISCO (December 3, 2009) — Amidst debate over the economic implications of California’s landmark global warming law, the Center for Resource Solutions (CRS) today released a report comparing the assumptions, models and results of differing economic analyses. Three of four prominent analyses show the costs of climate policy are far outweighed by projected economic growth, the new study finds.
Climate Policy and Economic Growth in California examines the assumptions, models and results of four different economic modeling efforts conducted by the following organizations: l) California Air Resources Board (CARB); 2) University of California researchers; 3) Charles River Associates/Electric Power Research Institute; and 4) Varshney and Tootelian.
The first three studies all found strong growth even while considering only a narrow class of benefits—expected energy savings from efficiency measures. The fourth study, Varshney and Tootelian, includes only costs and no benefits associated with the law. Broader economic benefits expected to occur, such as boosts to the clean energy and pollution control sectors, improvements in public health, and increased investment in clean tech industries, were not included in any of the studies.
“Our examination revealed that the state’s economic analysis is consistent with other major independent macroeconomic studies, including those from the University of California, the Electric Power Research Institute and Charles River Associates,” said report author Chris Busch. “Each show strong statewide economic growth under AB 32. The story these models tell is that climate solutions are affordable and economic growth is expected to be robust at the same time that pollution reductions of the magnitude called for by AB 32 are achieved.”
Highlights of the report include:
“Even without computing a broad range of economic benefits associated with reducing emissions, three of four mainstream studies show similar results: robust economic growth in California after the implementation of AB 32,” remarked Busch. “Our comparative analysis shows clearly that the Varshney and Tootelian study is an outlier in assumptions, modeling and result.”
About Center for Resource Solutions
Center for Resource Solutions (CRS) is a national nonprofit with global impact. CRS brings forth expert responses to climate change issues with the speed and effectiveness necessary to provide real-time solutions. Its leadership through collaboration and environmental innovation builds policies and consumer-protection mechanisms in renewable energy, greenhouse gas reductions, and energy efficiency that foster healthy and sustained growth in national and international markets. For more information about its programs, including Green-e, visit www.resource-solutions.org and www.green-e.org.