Comment Log Display

Chairman Nichols and Members of the Board:

Thank you for your concern for our environment.  While everybody
cares about the environment, please postpone your cap and trade
plan and take into account the costs this will impose on our
already weak economy, the failure of cap and trade to gain traction
elsewhere and the deep opposition of millions of California
taxpayers and business owners.

Even your own analysis estimates the cap and trade proposal will
result in a loss of GDP, and many other researchers have estimated
much greater costs.  The cap and trade proposal discusses business
owners having the choice of paying cap and trade taxes or
alternatively investing in new equipment.  The writers of the
proposal may think this is a generous proposition by giving the
carbon-emitter the choice of what type of additional costs they
would like to incur, but the fact is many small businesses are
already operating in the red and cannot afford either option. 
Regular citizens are currently struggling and cannot afford these
additional costs.

The cap and trade documents show that CARB continues to imagine
that moving forward with this proposal will “show leadership” in
the fight against supposed global warming.  However, since
California began to show leadership with the passage of AB 32 in
2007, every state but New Mexico has declared that it does not want
to join us in a cap and trade market and American voters have
elected a Congressional majority committed to opposing cap and
trade on a national level.

While some have posited that the failure of Prop. 23 is a mandate
to go “full speed ahead” with AB 32 implementation, nothing could
actually be further from the truth.  Over 3 million Californians
voted Yes on Prop. 23, even though the effort to suspend AB 32 was
outspent by 3-1 and faced with a barrage of deceptive
advertisements by opponents.

The 3 million Californians who voted Yes, or nearly 4 in 10 voters,
believe now is not the time for costly new global warming taxes. 
Please remember that you represent the people of California, not
just eco-left special interests.  This proposal is divisive and
endangers the livelihoods of many families while failing to inspire
other states to follow.  Please reconsider.

Respectfully submitted,


Eric Eisenhammer
Founder
Coalition of Energy Users