By Roger Pielke Jr., Prometheus

Today’s ClimateWire reports that California’s proposed climate policy - known by its bill number as AB32 - has been soundly criticized by a distinguished panel of six internationally recognized economists with expertise in carbon policies: California intentionally skewed its analysis of the economic effects of its climate change plan, according to a review by state-commissioned economists.

All six economists found the analysis deeply flawed, and several even said the state hand-picked data to improve the economic case for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Wow. When policy makers and experts shape an analysis to suit a political agenda some people have been known to throw around terms like a “war on science”. Somehow I doubt that we’ll hear any concerns about a “war on economics” being waged by the state of California. More seriously, what is going on here is that advocates for certain policies face temptations to present those policies in the best possible light in order to increase the chances that the proposed actions will be adopted. As we’ve argued here for a long time, such biased analyses can be found across issues and the political spectrum, even in the case of California’s carbon policy.

The fact that California’s AB32 has failed peer review does not mean that it is necessarily a bad idea, it just means that policy makers and Californians really have no idea what the effects of the proposed policy will actually be when implemented. The consensus of the peer reviewers is that the costs of the proposed policy are likely to be much higher than the state’s economic analysis suggests, and there are far more uncertainties than the analysis considers.

Disappointingly, but not surprisingly, the state of California largely brushes off the peer review comments with the following rather amazing dismissal: Economic modeling is not an exact science, and there will always be different opinions about assumptions and how to apply the available tools. This is to be expected. So if economic modeling is really about opinions, of which there are many, then why in the world submit any such analysis for peer review?

Attached are a few excerpts from the peer review submissions, which include some very strong criticisms. The peer review report can be found here in this PDF. Read Roger’s full post and comments here.