Letters to the Editor

June 4, 2014

Controlling costs are key to meeting climate goals

Re "Carbon plan spotlights state" (Capitol & California, June 3): The article about the U.S. EPA's new carbon rules makes it seem as if the California Chamber of Commerce opposes the state's cap and trade measure. Wrong. We support a market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, since it will minimize job loss. In fact, we asked that it be included in Assembly Bill 32 of 2006. The cap reduces carbon emissions while the trading mechanism allows companies to find the most cost effective means to meet it. Unfortunately, the California Air Resources Board layered an illegal carbon tax on top of cap and trade. The Legislature never authorized this tax and the tax is the only focus of our litigation. We don't seek repeal of cap and trade or AB 32 as the article suggests. California's carbon reduction efforts can only be a success if others follow our lead. This won't happen by adding more costs that aren't necessary to achieve AB32 goals.

-- Allan Zaremberg, California Chamber of Commerce president and chief executive officer, Sacramento

Related content




Editor's Choice Videos