Politicians, environmentalists and advocates are divided over Proposition 23, which would suspend the state’s global warming law AB 32.
By Michael Aushenker / Special to The Malibu Times
The controversial Proposition 23 has advocates claiming it would save Californians millions and critics insisting that the ballot measure is an oil-company shill that would prove a huge setback for the state’s environment and green energy industry.
At the heart of the proposition is California’s 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, known as AB 32, which was passed to control fossil-fuel pollution that scientists claim is disrupting Earth’s climate. AB 32 mandated that utilities get a third of their electricity from renewable sources and cap emissions from industrial plants. Passage of 23 would suspend the state’s global warming law until state unemployment dropped to 5.5 percent for one year. The current unemployment figure is more than 12 percent in California.
“It’s not a suspension, it’s a straight killing of AB 32,” Sen. Fran Pavley, the bill’s author, told The Malibu Times.
Yes on 23 advocate Anita Mangels believes that “without Prop. 23, unemployment will remain higher for longer because of the enormous cost of the global warming law will cause businesses to downsize or even close.”
Clean technology companies, environmental groups, wealthy conservationists and Silicon Valley players are heavily donating to defeat the measure. Contributions for No on 23 have more than tripled in the past month, with $1.2 million coming from the Washington-based League of Conservation Voters.
As of last week, opponents of 23 had raised $19.6 million, more than twice as much as supporters of the initiative, which includes several major oil refiners. Texas-based Tesoro Co. ($1.5 million), Ohio-based Marathon Petroleum Company ($500,000), and Kansas-based Koch Industries ($1 million), a major Tea Party supporter, contributed substantial donations in support of the measure. The San Antonio-based Valero Energy Corp., which operates refineries in Wilmington and Benicia, has contributed $4 million to the Yes on 23 $9-million campaign.
That so many out-of-state oil companies are backing 23 troubles environmentally minded politicians, including Pavley, who currently chairs the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who helped raised $1 million to fight the proposition.
“It’s ironic that the majority of the money is being pumped in by non-California businesses,” said Malibu Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich. “It’s going to help Texas and companies that want us to be dependent on fossil fuels and on them.”
Mangels said she wants to dispel what she said is “the biggest myth” about 23.
“This is not a repealing of the law, just a reflection of the current economic climate,” she said. “We will still have solar energy laws, we will have the electric car mandate, SB 275, all outside of AB 32. We’ll get emissions reduction through separate legislation not impacted by Prop. 23.”
Pavley is wary of the measure’s unemployment-rate clause.
“When’s the next time we’re going to have 5.5 percent unemployment?,” she said. “The suspension will create uncertainty, dry up over $10 billion investment capital and shift it into other countries. That’s the real job-killer. [Proposition 23] undermines the momentum of green energy,” a movement that includes more than 12,000 clean tech companies in California, and, from 1995 to 2008, a 45 percent increase in the state’s green businesses and 36 percent green-job expansion.
Kelly Meyer, co-chair of the Leadership Council for the Natural Resources Defense Council, echoed Pavley’s position on job creation through AB 32, and the loss that Proposition 23 would incur.
“For every one job that is lost by getting ourselves off of fossil fuels, we can gain 20 to 50 jobs across the California economy through efficiency savings,” Meyer said. “No on 23 includes … Silicon Valley giants like Apple and Google to health groups like American Lung Association and hospitals across the state, to every major editorial board.”
Mangels warned that Californians would pay millions in administrative fees.
“The bureaucracy is enormous and [higher energy] costs would be passed off to consumers. And we will not make any difference in global warming.”
“The people will understand [the administrative fees],” Pavley said. “Californians are smart. They like to follow the money of who’s backing the initiative. When people find out it’s funded by out-of-state oil companies, they’re upset.”