First ask, “Exactly what is AB 32 going to accomplish?” The formation of new governmental oversight agencies and expansion of governmental power? Yes. The back-handed levy of taxes on citizens of the state? Yes. (You don’t think that corporations are going to eat the costs of implementation of this fool’s delight, do you?) Will AB 32 stop global warming? No. AB 32 won’t even put a dent in global warming. (Assuming we all agree that “global warming” is actually occurring and can be controlled by mankind… a conclusion that is far from consensual.) But it will generate more government union jobs and generate more money that can be spent as the government deems. All while reducing emissions worldwide a fraction of a percent.

But what about the promised Emerald City a.k.a.”Green Economy”? Despite what you might hear, economies can not be grown by the government – only the market. Many governments have tried and failed. The fact is that forcing “green” policies down our collective throats may appeal to the “Prius and Birkenstock” crowd, but it won’t be self-sustaining as a market must be. Green markets will develop properly as the technology matures and the market dictates – not the government.

And that’s why Ms. Whitman is right on this one. The only effect that AB 32 will have on this state (and the world) is to cripple the state economy even more. Sorry – AB 32 will not make the ice caps grow thicker and polar bears won’t be happier. It won’t even be a “good start” towards that end.

And though a robustly growing economy might handle such whimsical wastes of funds (as the “awash in moolah” latter 1990’s demonstrated), our teetering current and foreseeable future economy won’t.

The article goes on to say how important that recovery is for the country as California would, by itself, qualify for inclusion in the G8.

They did note that our dysfunctional government would make that somewhat more difficult, saying, “…they’ve also straitjacketed their politicians with scads of lobbyist-produced ballot initiatives locking in huge outlays for various goodies, as well as the notorious Proposition 13, which has severely restricted local property taxes since 1978. California is also one of only three states that need a two-thirds supermajority to pass a budget or raise taxes, a virtual impossibility in its ultra-partisan legislature…. The state’s economy actually grew last year, but its revenues crashed because its top earners had lower incomes and capital gains. That meant sharp cutbacks, especially in education, which in California is unusually dependent on state cash (which they didn’t link back to the aformentioned Proposition 13).” They wrap up this topic by holding out hope for constitutional reform.

So, if you believe TIME (which I don’t always at all), eMeg’s proposals are wrong for both the environment and for the economy.