SC POLICY COUNCIL: CLIMATE CHANGE PROPOSAL WOULD COST $12 BILLION, CUT GLOBAL EMISSIONS LESS THAN TWO-TENTHS OF A PERCENT

Get your wallets ready, because a new pointless proposal from one of Gov. Mark Sanford’s committee’s could cost taxpayers billions. This at a time when the global markets are struggling, the U.S. economy is failing and South Carolina is flat broke.

Economists at the Beacon Hill Institute found that implementing the Climate, Energy and Commerce Advisory Committee report submitted to Sanford last week would cost taxpayers $11.9 billion while offering almost no environmental benefit, according to the South Carolina Policy Council.

“The recent financial crisis should put policy makers on notice – we cannot afford to implement regulations without analyzing the economic impact,” said Ashley Landess, president of the SC Policy Council. “The CECAC recommendations make no sense for South Carolina and would end up putting our lower income families at great risk. To even consider those recommendations would be extremely irresponsible.”

How would we pay this astronomical sum? Tax increases and heavier regulations of businesses, of course. At least, that’s what the Center for Climate Strategies, who authored the CECAC report, propose.

Findings from the Policy Council’s study:

* CECAC recommendations would cost South Carolina taxpayers $11.9 billion between 2008 and 2020.
* In 2009 the recommendations would cost the state 13,542 jobs
* In 2009 private investment would drop by $204 million
* In 2009 the average South Carolina family would incur a direct cost of $1,836
* Projected global emissions for 2025 would be reduced just 0.012 percent

I think someone needs to tell Sanford that money DOESN’T actually grow on trees, so raising taxes and spending billions to protect them won’t increase the state’s cash flow.

Even so, the study found that any environmental benefits projected by the CECAC report are questionable, at best. More from the Policy Council:

[The CECAC report's] methodology relies on more than 20 policy recommendations taken verbatim from reports prepared for other states. These “carbon copy” recommendations fail to account for vastly different geographic, economic, climate, cultural and population characteristics.

For example, the CECAC report recommends adoption of California vehicle emissions standards that would require new cars sold to emit 30 percent fewer greenhouse gas emissions. The population of South Carolina is more rural (133.7 persons per square mile versus 217.2 persons per square mile in California) with only a fraction of the traffic of California’s large urban areas.

CECAC also proposes a 1.75 cent increase in the gasoline tax to fund an increase of mass-transit, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. The report again relies on California data to suggest driving would decline in South Carolina despite the fact that California already has an eight-fold advantage of citizens using mass transit (4.8 percent in California versus 0.5 percent in South Carolina.) These vast differences cast serious doubt on the validity of projected costs and benefits within CECAC calculations.

South Carolina currently accounts for 1.6 percent of U.S. greenhouse house emissions and 0.28 of world emissions. If the state implemented all CECAC recommendations the net reduction of global emissions would amount to less than two-tenths of one percentage point of projected 2025 emissions. In other words, South Carolina would spend $11.9 billion to reduce world emissions from 100 percent to 99.8 percent.

But, can we trust these findings?

“The Policy Council report was done by respected economists who did a thorough and objective analysis, compared to the CECAC report which used questionable methodology and failed to consider South Carolina’s specific characteristics,” Landess said. “Such blanket recommendations are dangerous to our economy, and underscore the need for a much more thoughtful approach to environmental policy. We cannot afford to ignore the economic consequences of any government decisions.”