A+ R A-

Proposition 23 Wrong For The State Of California

E-mail Print PDF

Share this article with a friend

Proposition 23, the ballot measure that would suspend California’s progress toward a clean-energy economy, would be very bad news for California’s low income and minority communities. It would stifle job growth, an effect especially harsh in minority communities where unemployment is among the state’s highest. And it would stymie efforts to clean up some of the state’s most toxic facilities, areas where a disproportionate number of California’s minorities live.

If passed, Prop 23 would require the state to abandon for now its comprehensive clean air and clean energy standards that include increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major polluters. It would allow these programs to resume only after the state’s unemployment rate drops to 5.5% for a full year – something that’s happened just three times in 40 years.

California’s economy is recovering, but it will likely be more than a dozen years before unemployment drops that low, stifling development of clean energy technologies and setting back California’s efforts to compete with China and other states in winning our share of the new economy– years we may not have.

California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office recently refuted the claims by Prop. 23’s backers that the clean energy law is bad for the economy. It found the economic calculations used in those claims to be “essentially useless,” and it found that suspension of the clean energy law could “dampen additional investments in clean energy technologies or in so-called ‘green jobs’ by private firms, thereby resulting in less economic activity.”

Many of the affected minority communities are located just a stone’s throw from some of the state’s most toxic energy facilities.

In all, some 63 percent of the population residing within two and a half miles of these facilities is African American, Latino or Asian/Pacific Islander. And statewide on average, 70 percent of people of color are exposed to dangerous particulate matter linked exposure to such pollution; this disparity is particularly sharp for African Americans. Partly as a result of such exposure, California’s low-income communities are facing epidemics of asthma and lung disease due to air pollution, which contributes to thousands of premature deaths, hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks, and thousands of trips to the hospital.

Many of these toxic facilities are operated by some of the same out-ofstate oil companies – including Valero, Tesoro and Koch Industries – that are spending millions of dollars in an attempt to pass Prop 23. In fact, 98 percent of campaign cash for Prop 23 is from the oil industry; 89 percent of it is from out-of-state.

Such communities – like Wilmington in the LA area where many of the toxic plants are located and the poverty rate is 25 percent – would benefit greatly from the solid, good-paying “green color” jobs a clean energy economy would bring.

As San Francisco State Urban Studies Professor Raquel Pinderhughes recently noted, the vast majority of green collar jobs do not require high levels of education.

In fact, clean energy businesses are one of the few bright spots in our recovering economy.

These businesses are creating many jobs that can provide pathways out of poverty for struggling families. Many of these jobs – in solar companies, energy efficiency firms, and green manufacturing – are “middle-skill” jobs. They pay well and require training and skill, but they are available to people without 4-year university degrees. Since 2005, California green jobs have grown 10 times faster than the statewide average. If we kill our state’s clean energy and clean air standards, California would lose hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investments. California would change instantly from clean energy “leader” to “laggard.” Other states would win the countless jobs and investments that California now attracts.

We know why the out of state oil companies like Prop. 23. With it in place, the Texas fox would be guarding California’s henhouse, wiping out years of progress toward a clean energy economy, good jobs and a healthier quality of life.

Aubry Stone is CEO of the California Black Chamber of Commerce.

Add comment

By using our comment system, you agree to not post profane, vulgar, offensive, or slanderous comments. Spam and soliciting are strictly prohibited. Violation of these rules will result in your comments being deleted and your IP Address banned from accessing our website in the future. Your e-mail address will NOT be published, sold or used for marketing purposes.


Security code
Refresh

Comments  

 
0 # Guest 2010-10-28 19:30
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.

http://[censored].cnbc.com/id/39853750
Reply
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-10-28 07:27
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?
Reply
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-10-28 06:21
PROP 26 is just as destructive as PROP 23. Prop 26 is a treacherous, Big oil rip-off, which "passes the buck" from oil corporation, clean-up fees to the public's taxes, which will pay the oil recycling fees, the materials hazards fees and other fees. If you do not understand the ambiguities and the intrigues behind Prop 26, then, vote no. Power to the people. BP, Shell and Exxon Mobil are silent partners behind rop 26.
Reply
 
 
-2 # Guest 2010-10-28 06:15
500,000 jobs may be added but 1 Million will be lost if we fail to Vote YES on Prop 23.

AB 32 is not a pollution control Bill, its a Global Warming Bill that puts Cap and Trade in place and it will increase family bills by $3,800 a year if its allowed to go into effect in January 2012.

AB 32 was enacted before the facts were known. AB 32 needs to eliminate the Cap and Trade provisions 70% of America Opposes, eliminate the unnecessary oversight Fees, eliminate the reliance on flawed Green House Gas assumptions, correct the vague language that will introduce Environmental Red Tape that will do more damage than good, ensure AB 32 doesn’t undermine The Rule of Law, and make non-governmental agencies like CARB accountable to the taxpayer for their mistakes.

Vote YES on Prop 23, it makes the most sense until AB 32 is fixed and we can afford it.
Reply
 

Quantcast