Scientist Who Spotted Faulty Air Pollution Figures Still Supports AB 32, Opposes Prop. 23

• Earl Richards points to the big, bad oil companies as if they are the only ones hurt by AB 32 which hurts anyone using diesel engines. Transportation companies trucking goods into our state; driving up the cost of those goods in an already bad economy. Construction companies. Schools, if they're not exempt (buses). I'm astounded by liberal ignorance of basic economics. If you jack up business operating costs, they will pass that on to the consumer and they're justified. If their business slumps as a result, they will cut costs elsewhere like in their workforce all in an effort to maintain profitability. If you can't see that, you're in a fantasy world. AB 32 is just another way to shoot ourselves in the foot.

• "AB 32 shouldn't move full-steam ahead, or that the competence of Air Board scientists should be called into question" - So what should be called into question? If it isn't incompetence, what is it then? Dishonesty? The Air Resources Board overestimated by 340% to make it look like AB 32 was urgently needed. If their competence shouldn't be called into question, their integrity should because it is one or the other.

• Points to ponder on AB 32: � Sacramento State University reports estimated cost of $3734 per year per family due strictly to this AB 32. � CARB has admitted that California alone cannot have an impact on reducing global warming and CO2 emissions. � US EPA acknowledges that US action alone will not impact the world CO2 levels; � US EPA (11 July 2010) said that bills in Congress will not reduce the total use of gas and oil of 20 million gallons per day for decades. � LAO (CA Legislative Analyst Office) stated: CA economy at large will be adversely affected by implementation of climate-related policies that are not in place elsewhere. (Letter to Dan Logue, 13 May 2010) � Even CARB�s own economic experts have recognized the fact that jobs will be lost because of AB 32. In fact, they recommend establishing a �Worker Transition Program� to provide assistance to people who lose their jobs because of AB 32 regulations. � AB 32 does nothing for local pollution, nor does Proposition 23 do anything to increase local pollution. � 5.5% unemployment for 4 consecutive quarters has occurred 7 times since 2005, 14 times since 1999, and 22 times since 1987. When the loudest objections to any candidacy or initiative are focused on vilifying its financial backers, this often indicates that its opponents' arguments on its merits are weak. Vote yes on Prop 23 and suspend AB32.

TotalComments: 3