The benefits of going green in California

[GLT]

The benefits of going green in California

Sunday, September 21, 2008


One of the biggest worries about fighting global warming is cost. What
will it take for industry to retool to cleaner technology? How many
jobs will be lost as the economy shifts? And will consumers take an
economic hit as everyday items from cars to light bulbs are
redesigned?


These questions took on new urgency when California passed an
ambitious law two years ago imposing a 2020 deadline to cut emissions
of heat-trapping gases to 1990 levels. Business groups doubted it
could be done without damaging the state's economy or chasing commerce
overseas or out of state. Environmental boosters said up-front costs
would yield a long-term payback. Who was right?

This week the state agency charged with carrying out the global
warming plan produced an early look on the economic impacts. The
bottom line from the California Air Resources Board: The new goals
would give the state's economy a modest boost, save residents money,
add jobs and even avoid 300 premature deaths via cleaner air.

The air board study, debuted by the agency's leader Mary Nichols,
predicted that limiting greenhouse gases and expanding clean energy
would lead to 100,000 new jobs, boost the economy by $27 billion, and
save an average household $400 per year, chiefly through thrifty use
of energy and more efficient vehicles. The changes would grow the
state economy in ways that would increase per capita income by $200
per year.

These aren't towering sums in the context of a nation-state judged to
have the sixth largest economy in the world. But the larger point is
this: If the projections hold true, California won't be a financial
loser for going first in meeting the challenge of rising global
temperatures. A feared economic hit would be a measurable gain, the
figures suggest.

The 2020 deadline, in fact, has already turned the state into a green-
tech lab and think tank. Last year, California attracted $1.2 billion
in energy innovation money, and this flow of research dollars, talent
and work should increase.

This future could still be derailed. Retooling a carbon-based economy
will take continued, sizable investment. If the economy nosedives, as
it has this month, it may dry up the credit needed for new factories,
truck fleets or household appliances. The present-day projections in
the air board study could change for a host of unforeseeable reasons
such as a business-stifling jump in gas prices or a massive earthquake
that could disrupt daily life. The deadline to reduce greenhouse gases
is still 12 years away.

Even if the projections hold true, several industries stand to lose
ground in the changeover. Utilities will shed jobs as conservation
cuts down on energy use and new regulations clamp down on fossil-fuel
plant emissions. Electric rates may rise, though Nichols suggested
that consumers would be using less juice due to conservation and end
up with a smaller power bill.

Also, there will be fewer jobs in the oil industry from refineries
down to corner gas stations as higher-mileage cars and trucks take to
the road.

The optimistic study has another purpose. It paves the way for tough
decisions in the next few months that will limit tailpipe and
smokestack emissions and require energy-saving features in home
building and manufacturing. Emphasizing the long-term benefits of the
global warming law, as the air board study suggests, could dampen
objections from business groups. The findings, Nichols said, show that
the state's direction "will be good both for the environment and the
economy."

By no means is California finished with its global warming strategy as
the specifics are rolled out in coming rules. But the study's cautious
and hopeful tone shows that progress on the world's biggest
environmental challenge comes with a payoff, not a price tag. That's
an encouraging message on a daunting subject.

This article appeared on page G - 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle