The Choice Facing Californians: Low Carbon or Low Gasoline Prices?
Recently, the Energy Institute at Haas, part of the University of California, Berkeley, published an article titled “California Needs to Decide if it Wants Low Carbon or Low Gasoline Prices.” Written by James Bushnell, a professor of economics at UC Davis, the article delves into the complex tradeoffs between reducing carbon emissions and keeping gasoline prices low. You can read the full article here.
While the title of the article may be misleading (as California itself cannot make decisions), it raises important questions about the preferences of Californians. Bushnell discusses the ambitious targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for reducing carbon usage, but fails to provide a clear picture of the costs involved. Achieving these targets is likely to come at a significant expense.
However, public opinion surveys suggest that most Americans, including Californians, are not willing to bear high costs to combat climate change. A survey cited in a Cato at Liberty article revealed that 68% of Americans would not be willing to pay $10 more per month on their electric bills for this cause. The actual cost of making a substantial impact on global temperatures would likely be much higher, with only a small percentage of people willing to pay such amounts.
Comparing these survey results to the cost estimates provided by experts, such as the MIT study mentioned in a previous article by Robert P. Murphy, it becomes clear that the financial burden of reducing carbon emissions is substantial. The MIT study projected a cost of $3,100 per household for a cap and trade program, which would translate to around $80 per month per household when adjusted for inflation. This amount far exceeds what the majority of people are willing to pay.
Given these findings, it is evident that the majority of Californians, like most Americans, prioritize low gasoline prices over significant investments to reduce carbon emissions. Unless there has been a drastic shift in public opinion in recent years, it seems that the choice has already been made.
