When the word "study" is used to describe an analysis prepared by two professors at an accredited university, one expects a certain standard of thought and fairness.
So it's genuinely shocking to discover that a "study" looking at California's ground-breaking global warming law, AB 32, by two professors at Sacramento State is so flawed as to be useless, according to follow-up analyses by the Legislative Analyst's office, and by professors at Stanford and UCLA.
The study found that the law would cost households in CA nearly $4000 a year. Nonsense, say experts.
According to the LAO, speaking of work by Varshney and another professor, Dennis Tootelian:
"Both of the two studies…have major problems involving both data,
methodology, and analysis. As a result of these shortcomings, we believe
that their principal findings are unreliable."
And professors James Sweeney and Matthew Kahn, although polite, are no less damning in The Los Angeles Times, calling the work of Varshney and Tootelian "highly flawed," "based on poor logic and unsound economic analysis."
Really, they're too polite. Here's an example:
For cars, they agree that more fuel-efficient cars will save consumers
$360 a year. But in an inexplicable twist of logic, they decide that
because most people will not buy new cars, they count the fuel savings
as a cost increase of $360 per year for every car owned in California. A
saving for some becomes a cost for everyone in the Varshney/Tootelian
analysis.
Huh? How can a savings that accrues to those who buy new cars become a cost to those who already own older cars?
When pressed, the Sacramento State profs insist that
Rather than question the logic behind AB 32 or cost of regulations
studies or attack their reliability, critics should talk to small
businesses about the current economic challenges confronting
California.
In other words, they feel the pain of small business. Okay, but why does that excuse misleading?
Kit Stolz 