By Jill Chapin
October 9, 2010
Proponents of Proposition 23 want to suspend the air pollution control law AB32 because they very much fear it will cause the loss of California jobs.
One provision in the AB32 law requires utilities in California to obtain a third of their power from renewable sources by 2020. Proposition 23 wants to suspend implementation of this law until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for a full year.
But the State legislative analyst for Prop 23 says, “Economic forecasts for the next five years have the state’s unemployment rate remaining about 8 percent.” And with unemployment having been at 5.5 percent or less only eight times in the past thirty-five years, it’s likely that this proposition is more about abolishing the AB32 law rather than just suspending it.
Yet the L.A.Times just ran a story showing that, due to the renewable sources requirement in AB32, California’s clean-tech industry is now booming. In fact, California has more money being invested in solar and other alternative energy start-ups than anywhere else in the world. You read that correctly. More than 40 percent of all clean-tech venture capital funding worldwide went to firms in California.
If you’re wondering why this proposition is even on the ballot with all of this encouraging news, you have good reason to be confused. Opponents rightfully fear that if Prop 23 passes, it could discourage job creation in the energy efficiency and clean energy sectors. It could lead to a loss of billions of dollars in investment in California, creating a domino effect causing hundreds of thousands of jobs to evaporate due to uncertainty about whether utilities would still opt for green technology if the renewable sources requirement in AB32 were to be suspended.
The irony with Prop 23 is simply breathtaking. There are many reasons why citizens are so discouraged by our government’s increasing inability to use common sense, and Proposition 23 is Exhibit A.
But as is so often the case, common sense for the public’s interest is shoved aside by special interests who have a financial stake in the passage of Prop 23. That would be the oil companies who don’t want their product replaced with renewable energy. According to the Huffington Post, three out-of-state oil companies – Valero Corp. and Tesoro Corp of Texas and Flint Hills Resources in Kansas – are big contributors to Proposition 23.
There aren’t that many clear cut, black and white issues before us. Turning back the clock to the last century in addressing our energy needs is reason enough to vote “No”on Prop 23.
But what happens to support for a proposition when it’s very raison d’etre is subverted by new data that derails it’s very premise?
The Hunger Site
October 10, 2010 at 4:32 pm
The Center for American Progress reports that more than 100 economists with expertise in California energy and climate issues signed an open letter warning against delaying the implementation of clean energy policies. According to the letter, “the current recession and the very high unemployment rate in California present daunting challenges. Some have argued that these economic conditions warrant suspending the implementation of emission reduction policies. We disagree. Delaying action now and waiting for the future before initiating accelerated action to reduce global warming gases will be more costly than initiating action now. Acting now is more likely to limit further environmental degradation, lower the cost of mitigation, and spur innovation in renewable energy and conservation technologies.
Furthermore, policies that reduce global warming pollution are likely to provide immediate benefits to the health and welfare of residents by reducing local pollutants. For these reasons we urge continued support for policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These policies can improve our energy security, create new business opportunities and more jobs, and provide incentives for innovation. proposition 23 would actually damage California’s clean-energy economy and lower unemployment levels by crippling the emerging clean energy industries.”
Vote No on Propostion 23
October 9, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Points to ponder on AB 32:
° CARB over-estimated diesel emmisions by 340%
° Key CARB personnel caught lying about credentials and then failing to reveal this after it is discovered internally before AB 32 passed, until after AB 32 passed
° Sacramento State University reports estimated cost of $3734 per year per family due strictly to this AB 32.
° CARB has admitted that California alone cannot have an impact on reducing global warming and CO2 emissions.
° US EPA acknowledges that US action alone will not impact the world CO2 levels;
° US EPA (11 July 2010) said that bills in Congress will not reduce the total use of gas and oil of 20 million gallons per day for decades.
° LAO (CA Legislative Analyst Office) stated: CA economy at large will be adversely affected by implementation of climate-related policies that are not in place elsewhere. (Letter to Dan Logue, 13 May 2010)
° Even CARB’s own economic experts have recognized the fact that jobs will be lost because of AB 32. In fact, they recommend establishing a “Worker Transition Program” to provide assistance to people who lose their jobs because of AB 32 regulations.
° AB 32 does nothing for local pollution, nor does Proposition 23 do anything to increase local pollution.
° 5.5% unemployment for 4 consecutive quarters has occurred 7 times since 2005, 14 times since 1999, and 22 times since 1987.
When the loudest objections to any candidacy or initiative are focused on vilifying its financial backers, this often indicates that its opponents’ arguments on its merits are weak.
Vote yes on Prop 23 and suspend AB32.
October 9, 2010 at 12:56 pm
The California Jobs Initiative (CJI) is an oil corporation farce and fraud. There is no connection, whatsoever, between greenhouse gas emission reduction and the loss of jobs. This notion is an insult to the intelligence of the people of California. In fact, there is job growth in the clean, renewable energy industry. Chevron employs 65,000 worldwide and CJI is not going to change this. The only jobs created by the oil industry are clean-up jobs after oil spills and deep water, blow-outs and pump-handler jobs. CJI will make fantastic profits for the oil industry, increase air pollution, especially in communities around their refineries and there will not be lower gas prices. Koch Industries, Valero and Tesoro are super Enrons. Since when did the oil companies start to show any concern for the unemployed and their families and for small businesses?