Student Perspective on Proposition 23
As Election Day draws nearer and tensions rise, many a heated discussion is being had about Proposition 23. What is Proposition 23? Well, I am glad you asked.
First let’s start with California Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Act of 2006. AB 32 calls for increases in clean energy requirements and fines and documentation requirements for large polluters; the end goal is to reduce our green house gas emissions to what they were in 1990. It is scheduled to go into effect in 2012. Proposition 23 would suspend implementation of AB 32 until California’s unemployment rate falls below 5.5% for one year. California’s current unemployment rate is 12.4%.
Supporters of Prop 23 believe that its passage will increase manufacturing in the state, thereby stimulating the economy. According to this group, if the Proposition does not pass California’s economy will suffer because the main source of jobs would be the service sector instead of the manufacturing sector.
Opponents of Prop 23 believe that if the proposition is passed, air pollution will become a greater health risk, California’s dependence on oil will increase, and clean technology companies will suffer. This group believes that the rapidly growing clean technology industry will provide the jobs needed if the Proposition does not pass, allowing California’s economy to grow and simultaneously reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Many UC Davis students are getting involved in the Proposition 23 campaign. The UC Davis chapter of the California Student Public Interest Research Group, CALPIRG, hosts a table on the UC Davis Quad asking students to sign a pledge to vote no on Proposition 23. They approach students by asking if they “have a minute for the environment.”
Another prominent member of the student body, the Experimental College Garden Coordinator, Lauren Cockrell, says,
“It’s really important to vote No on Prop 23 if we want to move forward with environmental sustainability. Although AB 32 may not be perfect, it’s a crucial starting point to ensure the future of a healthy planet.”
The general feeling on the campus is that Prop 23 should not pass. Many students sympathize with the economic concerns of the supporters of the Proposition, but they also recognize the importance of lowering California’s carbon dioxide emissions. Due to the emphasis on sustainability at UC Davis, many students’ loyalties lie with the environment.
Buy a funny little shirt that uses old hip-hop lyrics to comment on a serious environmental matter by clickin on the image!
Students all over California are banding together to protest Prop 23. “It’s Getting Hot In Here,” a blog about “the youth climate movement,” has mentioned Prop 23 numerous times. A student leader, Joel Francis, issued a debate challenge to a leading contributor to the Proposition 23 campaign. The challenge was turned down, but Francis and a team of constituents protested the company in response.
An interesting fact about Proposition 23, around 97% of the funding for the campaign comes directly or indirectly from two oil companies, Tesoro and Valero. These oil companies are based out of Texas and Kansas, not California. This means that out of state oil tycoons are attempting to impose their business interests on California. What’s wrong with this picture? The oil companies care about being able to do business, not the quality of California air. The quality of California air is our concern and if we care at all about our fragile respiratory systems and the beauty and health of our fair state then it is our duty to vote no on Proposition 23.
If you are interested in hearing more about debates occurring at UC Davis, and student opinions on the Proposition, check out the student newspaper, The Aggie.
I’ve already voted NO.
Well written and laid out article
Vote No on 23 if you want it to be harder for students to find jobs when they graduate.
Over 2 million people out of work, due in large part to California’s hostility toward business.
Green-tech claims 80 billion dollar industry possible. We’ve lost over 100 billion in proven revenue and income due to companies leaving California in the first half of this year.
Berkeley reports 163,000 green sector jobs in place. Green tech claims 500,000 possible. Over 2 million out of work now, with another million at risk if AB 32 is implemented.
This is not an either/or thing. Texas has 3 times the wind powered electrical generation as California. They have done this without a job killer AB 32. Texas has grown its economy at the same rate that California has shrunk its economy.
Points to ponder on AB 32:
° AB 32 is not a pollution law, it is a global warming law, but it won’t have any effect on global warming.
° CARB over-estimated diesel emmisions by 340%. What else have they over-estimated?
° 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. What else are they lying about and with-holding?
° 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) CARB acknowledges this as well.
° 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.
Please vote yes on prop 23. It really is about the economy and jobs.
I don’t really see how green energy even really relates that much to unemployment. Prop 23 just sounds like an excuse that oil companies came up with to protect themselves. If you want to bring down unemployment rates I don’t think putting a hold on attempts to clean up the environment is the way to do it. I just don’t see a strong connection there
Christine,
Have you actually talked to any business owners on how hard they are hit bay the emmisions control regulations and fees in California, and how expensive their energy is?
AB 32 will cause all prices to go up, causing businesses on the edge to fail. Businesses failing means jobs and tax revenue lost. Businesses in trouble that can manage to move do, taking more jobs, and tax revenue, with them.
“News that J.W. Bailey Construction Co. in Santa Barbara was closing its doors after 60 years came as a surprise. The company had a reputation for building high-quality buildings, often in the classic Santa Barbara style.
But after years of suffering with the growth curbs that are the hallmark of doing business on the South Coast, the company announced Oct. 15 it would be ceasing operations.
The company fingered California’s greenhouse gas reductions, mandated by AB 32, for making it unprofitable to operate in the Golden State.
“
If Proposition 23 is rejected, here is what will happen according to expert sources:
•A 60 percent increase in your electricity bill according to the Southern California Public Power Authority.
•An 8 percent increase in your natural gas bill according to CARB’s economic analysis.
•$50,000 more for the price of a new home according to an analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
•$3.7 billion a year more for gasoline and diesel according to Sierra Research.
•A $1,000-$3,000 additional cost for a new car according to CARB and automaker studies.
On top of all that, a study conducted for the California Small Business Roundtable found that AB 32 regulations would cost small business alone nearly $200 billion, and would result in more than 1 million lost jobs.
The more I learn about AB 32, the more I fear it. It just gets worse. Please vote yes on Prop23.
“”2 Guys on the Bay Area Transportation Board told the CARB people, “If you try to do what you are going to do(AB 32) we’ll have gas at $9.07 a gallon and we have freeway tolls at up to $4,500 a year to drive during rush hour.”
“Part of the plan is to stop suburban development, get people to stop driving, make driving too expensive for people to live out there, force them to live in high-rises, condos, in the city.”
For months, John and Ken have made Prop 23 their top priority, calling it a necessary step to stop a law they say will kill jobs and cost Californians a fortune in higher gas and energy prices. With an estimated one million listeners per week, these two guys usually manage to rally enough votes to get their way.
The video has John and Ken explaining why they think this bill is the most important measure on the ballot.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39853750
I personally support an increase in tax prices. I don’t think Americans consider the true toll gas takes on the environment as well as our relations with other nations. If we don’t come up with an alternative energy source, I fear our dependence on foreign oil is going to lead us into some major problems internationally. Problems like fighting wars over resources.
whoops, that should have been gas prices, not tax prices
@ Wayne – You are making a lot of assumptions about behavior based on your particular view of human nature. You’re also cherry picking some statistics that probably wouldn’t hold up with comparable research.
The example of one company leaving CA pales in comparison to the hundreds of companies (and bright people) that flock to our state because of of forward thinking policies.
Which leads me to my last point… of course CA’s environmental regulations aren’t going to single handedly solve the planet’s problems, but without our leadership how will we ever start moving in a direction that puts realistic values on our shared natural resources?
@Suzanne – AGREED re: the true cost of oil/gas consumption is exponentially higher than the taxes that purport to mitigate the very real problems with our oil dependent lifestyle… road maintenance, public safety and health all come to mind, not to mention the spoiling of our natural resources for generations to come.
Kemble,
California is one of the worst climates for business in the nation and AB 32 will only make it worse. I gave you one example of a business that left due to AB 32.
We have lost almost 200,000 jobs THIS YEAR. We have lost over 100 billion dollars in income and revenue THIS YEAR. We’ve even had green businesses leave due to the business hostile climate, and this is with AB 32 about to kick in.
Do some research on it yourself if you don’t believe me. I’ve looked at both sides, why don’t you?
And of course my reference to Prop. 25 was regarding the threshold for passing a budget being lowered from 2/3 to a simple majority. But it won’t be just budgets, as the (intentionally) ambiguous language of the proposition will also allow for new taxes to be passed with a majority vote.
@Pete – Welcome and thanks for your comments. Please review our Code of Conduct: http://www.davisvoice.com/code/ before you make further comments. Calling other commenters disparaging names is quite simply not allowed.
@Wayne – I have looked at both sides and come to a different conclusion. I am a small business owner and active in our local Chamber of Commerce, and I appreciate your sentiments… but, I think that you’re wrong… and so do a vast majority of Californians.