When it comes to the issue of global warming, I am, admittedly a skeptic. As I've written in the past, I struggle with the notion that global warming is entirely man-made, or even if it is, that there's going to be anything we can do to change its effects. But these days, it seems that any skeptic is viewed as simply irrelevant. After all, as many have said, the debate on global warming, “is over.” But should it be?

Global warming activists believe that severe cuts in emissions will move us towards saving the world from hotter temperatures, drought, and rising ocean levels. They believe that governments all over the world must enact carbon taxes and stringent business regulations to prevent these calamities. They talk highly of the “example” that California is setting for the world in enacting sweeping legislation, AB 32, that will require that we cut our carbon emission levels to those of 1990 by the year 2020.

For purposes of this article, whether or not these things all turn out to be true is beside the point. My frustration lies in the fact that an open and honest discussion of the consequences of these changes is quickly dismissed.

On most issues, rational people generally care to at least consider the other side of an argument. In the case of global warming regulation, why wouldn’t we want to at least weigh the consequences of imposing broad, strict and costly regulations against saving our resources to mitigate the effects of that warming or to address other human ills that might be more important. In other words, shouldn’t we at least look at the question of whether global warming will have the dire consequences that most activists claim, or will the economic impacts of regulation and the effects on poor communities and developing countries be a potentially worse problem for humanity? After all, if California is going to sail into these uncharted waters of carbon regulation, shouldn’t we do it with our eyes wide open?

Recently, the California Air Resources Board released the draft AB 32 scoping plan that contains a “framework” for AB 32 implementation. While the plan is vague and somewhat difficult to dissect, a cursory review of the plan should be alarming to anyone.

The plan makes it clear that whatever we do to implement AB 32, there will be a significant cost. In a discussion of carbon emission fees, the Scoping Plan suggests that taxes and fees as large as $23.5 billion annually would need to be imposed on Californians in order to “incent significant [carbon] reductions.” And that number doesn’t take into account the economic ramifications of closing down California factories that provide jobs or the increased costs of energy and food.

While I am hopefully that the Scoping Plan will at least drive more discussion of the cost impacts that they will have on all of our communities, I have my doubts. I have asked the Legislative Analyst’s office to perform a detailed non-partisan study of the plan itself, but my fear is that any critical analysis of the plan will quickly be passed over. There is reason for my suspicion.

In the State Senate recently, an informational hearing on the AB 32 Scoping Plan was held which provided an opportunity for members of the public to discuss some of the issues and the affects that the proposed regulatory changes will have on the various communities within California. When Pastor Robert Jones, a Methodist pastor from Sacramento’s Oak Park testified as to the need for a study of the impact of AB 32 on lower income communities, one Senator told the Pastor that she thought his arguments were “bulls***!” Not only was this an embarrassing moment for the Legislature as an institution, it shows that an honest discussion of the economic ramifications of AB 32 is nearly impossible to have in today’s highly charged atmosphere of global warming hysteria.

If the goal of environmental activists is to save human lives and the world’s natural resources, we should at least have a discussion about whether there are less costly ways to do so. It’s at least worth studying whether it may be more cost effective to reinforce levees and construct more water storage facilities to protect homes and provide water than it will be to try to keep sea levels from rising and droughts from occurring.

So, while I welcome an honest debate over how best to implement AB 32, I have my doubts that it will actually happen.