By Samuel Andrews:
According to the state attorney general, it appears that this proposition would suspend the California government from being able to implement further regulation on greenhouse gas emissions. measures toward their agenda for trying to stop global warming. Apparently the government has been making an effort to bring greenhouse gas emissions down to levels of the 199th decade AD by the year 2020. This means that the greenhouse gasses would have to be reduced by about 25% by then. While it is good to have clean air, this would come at a cost. Like all regulation, it is inconvenient for businesses to abide by government standards, and it would obviously discourage businesses from moving in and providing jobs for Californians. When Californians do not have jobs, then it hurts California's revenues. Keep in mind that this measure does not do away with with the greenhouse gas reduction agenda, it merely suspends it until the unemployment rate in California drops to 5.5% for an entire year. This is a compromise to suspend such regulations until the state economy can recover some more. Proposition 23 recommends to Californians that such measures are inconvenient at this point in time. I hope that this was clear, and that I provided enough information for you to make a decision with.
Basically...
Vote yes: If you like more jobs and industries in California, and if you agree that California has more demanding issues other than global warming to focus on at this time.
Vote no: If you like clean air, and you think that global warming is a threat to our prosperity and must be prioritized and dealt with without delay.
Those who are against it also claim that it would hurt the competition for wind and solar companies. Surely this would also damage the Californian economy in terms of wind and solar energy. It would also, of course, continue our reliance on costly foreign oil. So it appears that Californian jobs are at stake no matter which route we take.
It is estimated that the regulations could be suspended for another 5 years or more. Here is a list of some of the regulations that would be suspended. :
-gas stations would be required to change the mix of fuels to fulfill the "low carbon fuel standard".
-requirement that electricity providing companies would have to collect at least 33% of their energy from renewable sources.
Some of the new measures to be suspended (I got these from smartvoter.org):
-new vehicle emissions standards
-a program to encourage homeowners to install solar panels
-policies to promote less dependence on vehicle use
-building and appliance efficiency requirements
FOR:
Primarily Texas chemical and gas companies.
AGAINST:
Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman, the state Governor, our state senators (fienstien, and boxer), some consumer unions, some environmental organizations, and I think that mostly sums it up. (Sorry if that is too vague).
4 comments:
This one is such an obvious yes. The decision for business is simple: Close up shop and move to Nevada, to be rid of new global warming standards. This prop does not get rid of the regulations we already have for clean air, it just stops the new over-the-top Final Solutions act from going into affect.
And although the summary that you did Sam was very good, I do have one critique. It is funny that it looks like our (supposedly) unbiased attorney general used green house gas emissions and "dirty air" synonymously. Last time I checked, when I breathed out CO2, I didn't see a brown puff of smog (except when I hadn't brushed my teeth for a few days). The extra taxes and regulations imposed by the Final Solutions Act doesn't really have much to do with dirty air. They have to do with a theory that our polar bears are in trouble.
Also, this idea that solar and wind energy can only exist with government support is ludicrous. If it is good business and economically sound, then it doesn't need government funding; they would, like all other businesses, be profitable without taking tax dollars.
I am so tired of that argument. "WE NEED TO TAKE TAX DOLLARS TO CREATE JOBS". So why not just take tax dollars and give more welfare checks? It would have the same net effect. It is not the business of government to create jobs. It is the business of the government to create an environment where businesses can thrive, which businesses can then create jobs. That is what we call a *gasp* FREE market.
I voted Yes. We should suspend this "emmission control" AB, especially during the current economic crisis. We have more important things to put our money towards.
Thanks Sam. A couple of things @ Hyurum:
If Global warming really is a problem that we need to solve than the solution needs to start somewhere so the argument that if California stops polluting then jobs will just move to Nevada, or if US stops polluting than the jobs will just move to China although true does not solve the problem. Maybe it's a real problem and it's unsolvable. However, maybe it's a real problem and if people stop using this argument we'll actually be able to find enough people who care to help solve it.
The of clean energy isn't necessarily to create jobs but if dirty energy creates negative externalities that harm someone else isn't it the gov'ts job to try to curb those externalities? Mandating clean energy is one such method. This would be a reason for gov't to support clean energy even though the markets would not because it isn't the most efficient solution.
Sparrow, I understand your side of the argument.
Have you been noticing that it is becoming almost a fad for business to boast about using clean energy? Maybe there is, after all a force in the free market to correct this issue. The fact is that the global warming final solutions act can extend to controlling many aspects of our lives, all in the name of global warming. With this control will come all kinds of new taxes and fees on global warming gasses like carbon dioxide.
I think the financial meltdown that is in our eminent future is more scary than the theorized glacial meltdown in our future. Therefore, I think at the very least it is reasonable to demand that we get our priorities straight. Improve the economic outlook of the state first, and then when people are working and we have a positive cash flow, we can worry more about greenhouse gasses.
Post a Comment