A Gun to Our Head: The Environment or Jobs?

Senator Bob Dutton's picture
California State Senator representing the 31st Senate District

What if someone put a gun to your head and forced you to make a decision between your job and the environment? It’s not a fair choice, is it? No one should be forced to choose between having a job and taking care of the planet. Yet all too often this choice is being made for you—in Sacramento—as politicians adopt extreme environmental policies that kill jobs.

The laws passed each year by the Legislature often sound good. They are disguised with friendly sounding names. Yet history has proven and our current record unemployment numbers illustrate that these new laws often create more problems than they have solve. They spend your tax dollars to establish new agencies filled with state bureaucrats. These bureaucracies grow, not only with more government workers but with the power to change your life. These government agencies impose mandate upon mandate on everyone from small business owners to school teachers.

For example, an unelected body in this state, the California Energy Commission, recently imposed new regulations that are sure to kill more jobs in this state by limiting the types of televisions that can be sold. They did this without any scientific proof that limiting TV sales will actually improve the environment.

If all of this weren’t enough, a bunch of environmental lawyers now make a living suing folks to advance an ideological agenda. They abuse the judicial system to pressure state regulators and unelected judges to impose costly requirements on Californians—with little regard to how much these decisions will cost taxpayers or whether they will stifle job creation.

The growing mountain of taxes and regulations is suffocating California’s economy and costing jobs. The exact number of jobs is difficult to know for certain, but a number of recent studies suggest it may be quite large.

A recent Milken Institute study found that high taxes and an “onerous regulatory climate” have cost California 476,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs. And that’s not all: those missing jobs would have spurred the creation of an estimated 1.17 million more jobs throughout the economy, in addition to other benefits.

Another study, specifically requested by the State Legislature, attempted to quantify the costs of regulations on small businesses. The study found that regulations cost each small business $134,000, which equates to a reduction of 3.8 million jobs—a tenth of the state’s population!

My Republican legislative colleagues and I have sounded the alarm for years, yet our cries have fallen on deaf ears in the Legislature. But at least now a few prominent Democrats finally appear to be waking up to the monster they’ve created.

Earlier this year, Senator Feinstein, when confronted with the anticipated closure of California’s last remaining auto manufacturing plant, said that California “needs to come to grips” with the fact that it has “a cost-of-doing business problem.”

At a recent legislative hearing, State Treasurer Bill Lockyer scolded his fellow Democrats, urging them to stop pushing for tax increases and instead “become more efficient about spending the money we’ve got.” He said that most of the bills he sees come out of the State Assembly are “junk.”

Attorney General Jerry Brown has said “we’re overlaid too much with too many rules.” His prescription: “We've got to downsize government to the maximum degree. We've got to make it efficient and bring it to the community.” Considering that he’s had a hand in creating many of those rules over the years, that’s quite a statement!

The simple truth is that when it comes to jobs and the environment: a vibrant, growing economy need not be at odds with clean water, clean air and healthy forests. In fact, quite the opposite is true: economic advances have provided the technology necessary to achieve the environmental advances we all desire.

It’s time California officials paid more attention to the economic consequences of their actions. For months I’ve been warning that excessive regulations were putting a cement company at risk in my district in San Bernardino County. CalPortland Cement has been providing good paying, private sector jobs for more than a century. Unfortunately, in large part as the result of suffocating regulations, CalPortland has announced that they are shutting down most of their operations immediately, costing our region nearly 100 high paying jobs.

To stop further job losses, Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature should require all government entities to conduct a top to bottom review to identify regulations that are out-of-date or killing jobs.

Rather than waste taxpayer dollars to produce more red tape, California’s leaders should put the brakes on any bills that would cost private sector jobs. In addition to truly balancing the budget, legislators should devote their energy next year to identifying and repealing the bad laws and regulations that needlessly stifle California’s economy.

Our state can and should prosper both environmentally and economically. It’s time we stop putting a gun to our head and instead point it at the real problem: excessive and ridiculous regulations.

Senator Bob Dutton (Rancho Cucamonga) serves as the Republican point person on jobs and budget issues. Mr. Dutton has more than thirty years of experience in the private sector and is the founder and owner of a successful Inland Empire business. For more information, please see www.sen.ca.gov/Dutton.

Agreed: Why bans on TVs, light bulbs etc are wrong

Senator, you are certainly right that the TV ban is wrong - from any perspective

1.
Where there is a problem – deal with the problem!

Energy: there is no energy shortage (given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with set emission limits) and consumers – not politicians – pay for energy and how they wish to use it. Notice: If there was an energy shortage, its price rise would limit people using it anyway. No need to legislate for it…

It might sound great to “Let everyone save by only allowing energy efficient products”

However: Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance, appearance and construction advantages Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc): http://ceolas.net/#cc211x For example, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other advantages along with their large image sizes.

Products using more energy usually cost less, or they’d be more energy efficient already. There might therefore not be any total running cost savings either, depending on how much such a cheaper product is used.

Other factors also contribute to a lack of savings:

If households use less energy as a result of the various bans, then utility companies make less money, and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs. So people don’t save as much money as they thought.

Conversely, energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy, so people just leave TV sets etc on more, knowing that energy bills are lower, as also shown by Scottish and Cambridge research http://ceolas.net/#cc214x

Either way, supposed energy – or money – savings aren’t there.

Emissions?
Do electrical products give out any CO2 gas? Emissions (for all else they contain too) can be dealt with directly via energy substitution or emission processing See http://www.ceolas.net/#cc1x

The excuse that dealing directly with energy and emissions takes too long, does not hold up: http://www.ceolas.net/#cc201x - also because of the taxation alternative……


2.
Taxation, while still wrong, is better than bans for all concerned.

This is not like a ban on dangerous lead paint! It’s simply a ban to (supposedly) reduce electricity consumption. TV set taxation based on energy efficiency – unlike bans – gives Governor Schwarzenegger’s impoverished California Government income on the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice. This also applies generally, to cars, buildings, dishwashers, light bulbs etc, where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can’t use.

Politicians can use the tax money raised to fund home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions more than remaining product use raises them. Energy efficient products can have any sales taxes lowered, making them cheaper than today. People are not just hit by taxes, they don’t have to buy the higher taxed products – and at least they CAN still buy them.

Of course, to avoid smuggling, bans (and to a lesser extent taxes) have to be applied nationwide or internationally.

Both bans and taxes are however in my view unjustified, taxes just being a comparably better option.



Please note, statements and opinions expressed on the Fox&Hounds Blog are solely those of their respective authors and may not represent the views of Fox&Hounds Daily or its employees thereof. Fox&Hounds Daily is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the site's bloggers.