California Voting: Proposition 23
The Governor's Race
The Lt. Governor's Race
The Attorney General's race
The Senate Race
Proposition 19: Yes
Proposition 20: Yes
Proposition 21: Yes
Proposition 22: ?
Proposition 23:
Official summary:
* Suspends State law that requires greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, until California's unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters.
* Requires State to abandon implementation of comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, until suspension ends.
Estimated fiscal impact:
* The suspension of AB 32 could result in a modest net increase in overall economic activity in the state. In this event, there would be an unknown but potentially significant net increase in state and local government revenues.
* Potential loss of a new source of state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government to certain businesses that would pay for these allowances, by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations.
* Lower energy costs for state and local governments than otherwise.
It's really hard to be on the side of any proposition that large oil companies have dumped millions (almost $6 million to date) into advocating. It's even harder when the initiative is written in such a way as to make it appear reasonable, when in fact it is not.
Very few people have a clue as to what it would mean to 'suspend' AB 32 until unemployment were below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. It sounds plausible, after all -- 5.5% is such a nice number, why not?
Well, because California's unemployment rate is 12.4%, and obviously is not going to get below 5.5% for an entire year any time soon. Assuming their other arguments were valid (that AB 32 will cost jobs, at least in the short term), this proposition might have made sense if the 5.5% figure had been increased to, say, 7.5%.
(AB 32 is known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The act, passed by the California State Legislature and signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, is California's landmark clean air legislation... AB 32 requires that greenhouse gas emission levels in the state be cut to 1990 levels by 2020. The process of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the state is slated under AB 32 to begin in 2012.)
So you have to treat this for what it is: an attempt to basically kill AB 32. And that's bad. This is a battle of old technology (advocates: oil companies, the California trucking association) vs new technology (opponents: wind energy association, solar energy association).
Economics being the dismal science that it is, and new technology being one of the fundamental drivers of California's economy, I don't put much stock in the theory that AB 32 will cost a significant number of jobs and even if so, I suspect it would be only for a short time and result in a significant loss of jobs in the mid and long term. And this is not even considering the tradeoffs of more pollution and increased health risks.
So a NO vote is definitely in order.
Polling on this issue has been all over the map. The average of the polls since September 1 is
Pro: 38.5%
Con: 43.5%
but a weighted average by sample size would show a much closer race (a poll with 2000 respondents produced a 43% - 42% result).