The LA Times Refuses To Report Honestly on Costs of Climate Law

by William Yeatman on March 18, 2010

in Blog

Why can’t the LA Times be fair about the costs of AB 32, California’s global warming law?

Last week, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office found that the “net jobs impact” of AB 32 is “likely to be negative.” No surprises there-AB 32 is designed to raise the price of energy, and expensive energy hinders economic growth.

The LA Times, however, was unconvinced. The editorial board juxtaposed the LAO analysis with a report from the California Air Resources Board asserting that AB 32 would create 120,000 jobs. The LA Times asked, “Which is right?”

As if the answer is in doubt!

There’s a more important question: Why is the LA Times citing a discredited report? CARB’s rosy economic analysis of AB 32 was eviscerated by a non-partisan peer review panel of scholars.

Then again, I read about the peer review rebuke of CARB’s analysis in the Sacramento Bee, because the LA Times ignored it. How convenient.

Sean March 18, 2010 at 12:38 pm

Don’t worry DWP, the LA municipal department of water an power, is helping to get out the message. They are rasing rates between 6 and 28% to pay for the green agenda. Unions promise to buy into the agenda if they can be required to install it. They’ve tiered the rate structure so heavy users (read businesses) will pay the most. This is a great strategy for successful achievement of the carbon targets. All you need is enough of the biggest users to close down their operations in the state and move to a better business climate.

margot roosevelt March 18, 2010 at 7:22 pm

You have your facts wrong. The LA Times did not ignore the report. It published a straightforward story on the jobs report when it came out.

William Yeatman March 19, 2010 at 12:36 pm

I didn’t claim that the LA Times ignored the LAO report. Rather, I claim (correctly) that the LA Times ignored the devastating peer reviewed critique of CARB’s rosy economic analysis for AB 32. Dan Walters at the Sac Bee wrote a column on the critique, but the LA Times kept mum. On the other hand, the LA Times never fails to cover fawningly the work of any economist, but especially David Roland-Holst, who concocts an analysis “proving” that AB 32 would create scores of thousands of green jobs.

papertiger March 18, 2010 at 9:59 pm

The petitions are here. Download the two signature petition, print it up, sign it, and mail it to the address at the bottom.

Margot if you’d like one, nobody will ever tell.

F. Holcapek March 22, 2010 at 7:37 am

I found the following when looking of Carboniferous Carbondioxide concentrations

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: