Regulation has helped, not hindered California's green economy - Canadanewsmedia
Connect with us


Regulation has helped, not hindered California's green economy



Earlier this year, California raked in $2.7 trillion gross state product, overtaking the UK as the world’s fifth largest economy — only Germany, Japan, China and the US itself produce more annually. It isn’t just our lush farming regions or the technological wonders coming out of Silicon Valley that have made California an economic bellwether, the state’s strict adherence to environmental regulations, which go far and above what the rest of the nation demands, have certainly helped as well.

California has long been on the leading edge of environmental regulation. The state created its first Air Pollution District way back in 1947, a decade and a half before the passage of the US Clean Air Act, in response to public outcry over the air quality in Los Angeles.

The benefits of these environmental regulations are well-documented. For the past 25 years, the state’s GDP and population have steadily increased while per capita carbon dioxide emission rates have remained static. Since 2006, when the state passed its California Global Warming Solutions Act, per capita GDP has increased by $5,000 (nearly double the national average) and job growth has outpaced the rest of the nation by 27 percent while its per capita CO2 emissions dropped 12 percent, according to the annual California Green Innovation Index from California-based think tank, Next10.

“GDP growth in California has outpaced the US as a whole in recent years,” Meredith Fowlie, a professor of economics at University of California Berkeley, told NBC News in 2017. “Over this same time period, the state has implemented the most ambitious climate change policies in the nation. And CO2 emissions in the state have fallen.”

And it’s not just the air we breath but also the structures we live and work in, that have also benefited from environmental regulation. While the state has only just recently proposed requiring new homes to come equipped with solar panels, California has been dictating environmentally-conscientious building codes for decades.

In 1978, California implemented a series of radical and far-reaching changes to its residential building codes that would gradually become more strict over time. The aim was “to reduce the electricity and gas now used in typical new buildings by at least 80 percent for new buildings constructed after 1990,” per the California Energy Commission’s 1979 biennial report.

LA smog in 1956

Compared to pre-code houses, the modern California home uses 75 percent less power. Taken together, statewide household energy savings since 1978 run equivalent to the output of seven 500 MW gas-fired plants. Overall, the state’s per capita energy use has remained flat since the 1970s despite its economy growing a whopping 80 percent over the same period.

“When you increase energy efficiency and clean energy, what are you doing you spending less on energy and more on jobs to install and retrofit existing buildings,” Pierre DelForge, Director of High Tech Sector Energy Efficiency, Energy & Transportation program at the Natural Resource Defense Council, told Engadget. “So this is actually reinvesting in the local economy.”

Even during the bad times after the 2008 recession hit, California lawmakers ignored calls to gut the protections in the name of economic growth and instead established the state’s greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade program — the only one of its kind in the nation — which in 2016 cleared $2.5 billion in revenue from emission permits.

Interestingly, the 2008 recession and its fallout had an unexpected effect on the California economy, one which helped establish the state’s modern “green economy.”

“Blue collar industries initially left the state rather than stay in place, the pollution caused by those industries also left the state,” William Fulton, director of the Kinder Institute for Urban Research at Rice University who served as the planning director for the City of San Diego told NBC News. “But the economy then shaped around that kind of aftermath, and there was growth in other areas like the green industry.”

Today, green sector jobs outnumber those in the fossil fuel industry 8.5 to one. California has 300,000 jobs in green energy, more than double the 146,000 offered in Texas, the next largest employer in that industry.

“California is the most energy efficient economy in the world, and least carbon intensive,” Adam Fowler, a research manager at Beacon Economics, told Wired in 2017. “We have a very clear time series showing that the decoupling of fossil fuel use from GDP is possible.”

However, California’s aggressive carbon cutting programs could soon face an economic backlash. Last year, Stanford University energy economist Danny Cullenward released a study arguing that, should California continue to tighten carbon emission restrictions, it could price fossil fuel companies out of the state through exhorbitant operational costs. This, he asserts, could cause gas prices to skyrocket and potentially cause the environmental programs to lose public and political support. While the state looks to be on track to hit its 2020 carbon reduction goals, to actually hit the recently enacted 40 percent additional cut by 2030 could force California lawmakers into a legislative corner.

Luckily, there are already a number of potential solutions being discussed in the Capitol should that happen — everything from accelerating the development and deployment of renewable energy infrastructure to extending the cap-and-trade program to allowing regional power grids to share renewably produced energy across state lines.

“We’ve already decided as a state and as a Legislature that we want to dramatically reduce pollution and move forward toward a clean energy future,” Kevin de León told the LA Times. “That debate is over. Now we’re deciding how to get there.”

That decision will not likely involve any input from the federal government as many of these regulations run counter to the public positions of both Scott Pruitt’s EPA and the Trump administration.

In fact, in February of last year, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León raspberried the administration when he announced legislation that would ensure existing federal rules on air quality, water protection, endangered species and worker safety enacted prior to the start of the Trump administration would remain enforceable within the state, regardless of whether they were rolled back nationally.

“California can’t afford to go back to the days of unregulated pollution,” De León told an assembly of reporters during a press conference. “We’re not going to let this administration or any other undermine our progress.” The California legislature attempted a similar gamble back in 2003, during the George W Bush administration, when it sought to maintain existing standards for power plants while the Feds were relaxing regulations.

Then again in March of 2017, the California Air Resources Board voted to increase the fuel efficiency standards of gas and hybrid-electric vehicles in the state, just as the EPA was touting a nationwide rollback of those same regulations. Established in 2012, the fuel efficiency rules demand that vehicles hit 54.5 MPG by 2025. The Trump administration has tried to lower that standard.

“All of the evidence — call it science, call it economics — shows that if anything, these standards should be even more aggressive,” board member Daniel Sperling told the New York Times.

California Governor Jerry Brown Addresses Dept. Of Justice Lawsuit Against California

What’s more, this past April, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced that is office is bringing suit against the EPA over its reportedly illegal rollback of the “Once In, Always In” policy. This policy required the state’s leading producers of air pollution, those that produce more than 10 tons of a single pollutant or 25 tons of mixed emissions (think, oil refineries), to take permanent steps to reduce their emissions.

“Instead of prioritizing the health of hard working Americans, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt wants to let major polluters off the hook. That is unconscionable, and it is illegal,” Becerra said in a statement. “If the ‘Once In, Always In’ policy is rescinded, children in California and around the country -– particularly those who must live near the polluting plant or factory — may grow up in an environment with tons of additional hazardous pollutants in the air they breathe. California will not allow that to happen. The EPA must be held accountable.”

These legal challenges are still before the courts but have already garnered support from a handful of other similarly-minded states. “A lot of small steps create big momentum,” said Lauren Navarro, a senior policy manager at the Environmental Defense Fund, told the LA Times. “These are pieces of what it takes to get to a clean-energy economy.”

Images: Getty Images (La smog, solar panels, Calif. AG)

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Big Questions on Global Economy Hang Over Jackson Hole Gathering




Terms of Service Violation

Your usage has been flagged as a violation of our terms of service.

For inquiries related to this message please contact support.
For sales
inquiries, please visit

If you believe this to be in error, please confirm below that you are not a robot by clicking “I’m not a robot”

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and
that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review the Terms of Service and Cookie

Block reference ID:

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Island Voices: BC must learn to adapt to the gig economy




The rise of the gig or sharing economy is one of the most visible trends shaping the contemporary labour market.

Most gig jobs fall into the category of contingent work. Such work can be contrasted with a traditional job, in which a person has a durable and structured employment relationship with a specific employer. Today, more people are garnering income via contracting, freelancing, temporary assignments and various kinds of on-call arrangements. All of these are part of the broader gig economy.

article continues below

How prevalent is gig work?

Estimates vary, but it appears to be on the rise. In 2016, U.S. economists Larry Katz and Alan Krueger, in co-operation with the RAND Corp., launched a survey to track non-standard work. Their principal finding: 16 per cent of America’s labour force is made up of contingent workers.

A more recent survey, by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, reports that 10.1 per cent of American workers are engaged in “alternative work arrangements.” However, this survey only captures individuals whose main source of income comes from gig work. Other research suggests that up to three in 10 U.S. workers are generating at least some income via the gig economy.

The advent of firms such as Uber, TaskRabbit, Lyft, etc., has played a role in the expansion of non-traditional employment. Internet-based platforms are changing the way some people find and engage in work, while allowing other individuals to monetize their non-labour assets (homes, cars) to produce income. According to the Katz/Krueger survey, the biggest jump in contingent work has been among those who contract their services to another company (e.g., Uber).

How is the spread of gig jobs affecting the well-being of workers and households?

Start with earnings. Surprisingly, the Katz/Krueger survey indicates that many of those engaged in contingent work are clustered in the upper 40 per cent of the earnings distribution. This is especially true of independent contractors, consultants and self-employed professionals. On the other hand, contingent work that involves on-call and temporary-help jobs is associated with significantly lower levels of pay.

For many people, gig work is a means to earn extra money to supplement income from regular employment or other sources (e.g., pensions). The flexibility and real-time connectivity afforded by new technology-based platforms are yielding substantial economic benefits for service providers and consumers alike.

But some of those engaged in contingent work choose this option because they can’t find a traditional job — or because of requirements laid down by their employer. Gig work is often a necessity, not a choice.

A key feature of the gig economy is the presence of non-employer businesses that contract for labour instead of developing an in-house workforce. Uber is the best-known example, but there are now vast numbers of non-employer businesses operating in North America.

The proliferation of such firms raises issues around the working conditions that apply to non-traditional work. There’s a legitimate public policy concern that the business models of non-employer firms shift costs and risks to individuals, even though some of the people supplying their labour may be under the control of the organizations that procure their services.

In several U.S. states, workers have filed class-action suits against non-employer firms, arguing that they should be classified as employees rather than contractors — and thus gain access to the benefits and legal protections that attach to the employer-employee relationship.

Law and policy around these issues are evolving in Canada as well. Some provinces have recently updated their employment standards legislation, in part to account for the growth of gig work.

As technology steadily advances and more people turn to internet-based platforms to sell their labour and offer other services in exchange for income, the legal frameworks that apply to employer-employee relations will remain under scrutiny.

The gig economy is here to stay. In the labour market context, it facilitates the efficient matching of skills and tasks and gives people more options to earn income.

But it also raises questions about social protection and workers’ access to non-wage benefits.

As the gig economy continues to expand, governments will be under pressure to fine-tune the rules.

Jock Finlayson is executive vice-president of the Business Council of British Columbia.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Belarusian leader Lukashenko fires Cabinet as economy sinks




MINSK, Belarus — Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has fired his Cabinet, emphasizing the need to strengthen the economy to preserve the nation’s post-Soviet independence.

Lukashenko said he fired Prime Minister Andrei Kobyakov’s Cabinet for failing to execute his orders and for paying too little attention to the country’s social needs. He appointed banker Sergei Rumas to succeed Kobyakov.

Lukashenko has ruled Belarus with an iron hand for 24 years, maintaining rigid Soviet-style controls over economy and showing little tolerance for dissent or independent media.

He warned Saturday that Belarus will not turn into a “vassal” of its giant neighbour, Russia, even though he underlined the importance of close ties with Moscow.

Belarus has long depended on cheap energy and other subsidies from Russia, which is facing its own economic woes and warned that it would scale down assistance to its ally.

Lukashenko criticized Russia for failing to honour its agreements with Belarus.

“We will never become a vassal to anyone,” he said, warning against any attempts to encroach on Belarus’ independence.

“We will remain independent for as long as our economy develops as needed,” the Belarusian leader said, warning that “we won’t be able to maintain our independence if we ruin the economy.”

The cricket hero pulled off the seemingly impossible by winning the World Cup in ’92. Does he have another miracle up his sleeve to rescue his beleaguered country?
The economy is running hotter than expected. Perhaps it’s time to rein it in
‘This past year has been the most difficult and painful year of my career,’ he said in an interview where he alternated between laughter and tears
Vancouver’s warehouse lease rates are up 29 per cent in the first quarter year-on-year versus a global average of 3 per cent

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Source link

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2018 Canada News Media

%d bloggers like this: