Outside experts—some of whom were explicitly invited by CARB itself to provide comments—have agreed with my harsh assessment. For example, California’s respected Legislative Analyst’s Office declared:
[The Scoping Plan’s] evaluation of the costs and savings of some recommended measures is inconsistent and incomplete…[CARB] failed to demonstrate the analytical rigor of its findings…economic analysis played a limited role in development of scoping plan, and…despite its prediction of eventual net economic benefit, the scoping plan fails to lay out an investment pathway to reach its goals for GHG emissions levels in 2020.
Perhaps even more alarming were the remarks of Harvard’s Director of Environmental Economics Program, Robert Stavins. Now let’s be clear, this guy is no Rush Limbaugh ditto-head. He has been a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and was Chairman of the EPA’s Economic Environmental Advisory Committee—a post to which he was initially appointed during the Clinton years. So this professor is no “denier.” Yet here’s what he had to say about CARB’s rosy predictions:
I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the economic analysis is terribly deficient in critical ways and should not be used by the State government or the public for the purpose of assessing the likely costs of CARB’s plans. I say this with some sadness, because I was hopeful that CARB would produce sensible policy proposals analyzed with sound scientific and economic analysis.
As I stated earlier, despite receiving these remarkably critical remarks from people sympathetic to its cause, CARB decided to go forward with its plans. This should be troubling to every voter who (naively) thinks that government policies really are designed with their best interests in mind, or that the climate change agenda is being purely driven by objective scientific analysis.
As the reader has no doubt inferred, I myself fall into the “skeptic” camp, at least regarding the more catastrophic predictions. But regardless of the hard science, I think it is ultimately foolish to place the fate of mankind in the hands of politicians. Staunch environmentalists should check out housing projects, public schools, and the solvency of Social Security before turning to the government to save the planet.