Monday, March 01, 2010

Calif SuspendAB32 anti-climate effort isn't looking too healthy

Not only are the would-be SuspendAB32 folks painfully reticent about who's committed the $600k (according to Dan Logue) to their signature gathering effort (*), but their own economic analyst wouldn't stand behind his analysis, according to the Sacramento Business Journal Friday.

The site asserts:
Economists estimate if nothing is done AB 32 will:
* Cost California up to 1.1 million jobs
* Cost the average family $3,857 a year in greatly increased expenses for housing, transportation, food and energy
* Cost $49,691 per small business
* Result in a total loss of output of $182.649 billion
* Devastate budgets of California social services agencies through massive losses in tax revenue

This was the study by Varshney and Tootelian of CSU Sacramento business school, a study which has been roundly criticized, most recently by Jim Sweeney, Director of the Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency at Stanford University as "very, very defective", according to this Sacramento Business Journal story - which also reported that Dr. Varshney, Dean of the Business School at CSUS, was unwilling to stand behind his study's findings.

h/t Steven Maviglio

I've emailed Drs. Sweeney and Varshney asking if there's anything they care to add or clarify; will report back.

1 comment:

Anna Haynes said...

It looks like the SuspendAB32 folks have been reticent about their financial backers to everyone - this Feb 12 Sign On San Diego story says "[Dan] Logue said the campaign has 'commitments' for about $700,000 [for signature gathering] ...He and [Ted] Costa declined to reveal who has pledged financial assistance.".

And Stanford's Dr. Jim Sweeney (who'd termed the SuspendAB32 folks' economic impacts study (pdf) by Varshney & Tootelian "demonstrably false and biased and greatly overblown" - his analysis is here (pdf)) said in email:

"Although I do support AB 32, I fully believe that reasonable people can disagree about whether AB 32 is a good policy for California. And honest debate about whether AB 32 is good policy should be encouraged. ... I simply want the public debate about AB 32 to be based on the best analysis and science (economic and physical science) that is possible. This particular report by Varshey/Tootelian simply does not hold up to that standard."