A False Statement in Today’s WSJ Editorial on “California Green Taxes”

The WSJ’s editorial writers often present some interesting thoughts, but today in this piece attacking California’s carbon mitigation AB32 efforts they republished a false “fact”.  It is true that a consultant estimated that California households will be paying an extra $3,800 a year in new regulatory costs.  But, this estimate is severely flawed and overstates the likely true costs.  Here is my cross-post sketching the issues and linking to my critique of that consultant’s report.

Author: Matthew E. Kahn

Professor of Economics at UCLA.

6 thoughts on “A False Statement in Today’s WSJ Editorial on “California Green Taxes””

  1. Finding lies in the WSJ’s editorial pages is like finding sand in at the beach. It shouldn’t have come as that much of a suprise.

  2. The comparison to the southern tier of europe, although possibly “funny and well-written”, is also tendentious garbage. We’re talking about a state whose anti-tax loons, applauded by the WSJ editors at every turn, have created fiscal conditions that make Ireland look good.

    But Mitch is right: noticing falsehoods on the WSJ editorial page is like noticing that Karl Rove’s lips are moving.

  3. Matt, great post (both of them)!! Usually I don’t care much for your freemarketeering ways, but it was nice to see you sticking up for little old California. Of course everyone here knows that regulations cost money. So does pollution.

    What was that phrase about capitalism? Privatized gain, socialized loss…?

  4. The WSJ’s editorial writers often present some interesting thoughts

    Whatever gave you that idea?

    1. I was going to make the same comment before I noticed this one. I haven’t seen an “interesting thought” in a WSJ editorial section in ye… decades. Most of the “thoughts” expressed there are blitheringly stupid–which makes one wonder why anyone would bother calling them “thoughts”–but even that only if they are not outright lies. The only change since the News Corp takeover has been the leeching of the editorial lies into the news section. Sorry, Matt, there is no “interesting thoughts” on that page–not today, not in a long time. What’ the difference between a Centrist and a spineless worm? A worm actually CAN be consistent…

Comments are closed.