In the Sac Bee this morning:
“This is big, and I hope it sends a message across the country,” Brown says about Senate Bill 32, which will require dramatic reductions in the use of carbon in everything ranging from automobile fuels to home energy. Republicans and business interests say the regulations will be too costly.
Allan Zaremberg, president and CEO of the California Chamber of Commerce, said the bills “impose very severe caps” on emissions “without requiring the regulatory agencies to give any consideration to the impacts on our economy, disruptions in everyone’s daily lives or the fact that California’s population will grow almost 50 percent between 1990 and 2030.”
Well maybe not, Joel Kotkin writing at www.newgeography.com about the states gaining and losing the most migrants and money.
And then there is the big enchilada, California. For generations, the Golden State developed a reputation as the ultimate destination of choice for millions of Americans. No longer. Since 2000 the state has lost 1.75 million net domestic migrants, according to Census Bureau estimates. And even amid an economic recovery, the pattern of outmigration continued in 2014, with a loss of 57,900 people and an attraction ratio of 88.5, placing the Golden State 13th from the bottom, well behind longtime people exporters Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and Louisiana. California was a net loser of domestic migrants in all age categories.
Some analysts have claimed that the people leaving California are mostly poor while the more affluent are still coming. The 2014 IRS data shows something quite different. To be sure the Golden State, with its deindustrializing economy and high costs, is losing many people making under $50,000 a year, but it is also losing people earning over $75,000, with the lowest attractiveness ratios among those making between $100,000 and $200,000 annually, slightly less than those with incomes of $10,000 to $25,000.
The reality is as Gov Brown and his progressive legislature are attempting to solve the non-existing problem of climate change with more costly regulations. The cost of living in California will continue to soar, and people will be voting with their feet, moving to states with a lower cost of living and a more welcoming business environment.
The AB-32 economic friction that is raising the cost of living will continue to drive people from the state, is all for naught according to the Sac Bee:
But California represents such a small fraction of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions that even if it does continue to dramatically reduce emissions, the broader impact on global warming will be minimal.