Share:

Proposition 23 on the Nov. 2 ballot aims to suspend California’s Global Warming law, until state unemployment rates drop. Assembly Bill 32, which passed in 2006, requires substantial greenhouse gas emitters in California to reduce and regulate their emissions starting in 2012. Amidst a cloud of speculation the majority of the funding for this deregulatory proposition has come from out-of-state oil companies.

If passed, Proposition 23 would delay the implementation of AB 32’s regulatory actions until the state’s unemployment rate drops to or below 5.5 percent for at least a year. According to the official voter information guide, unemployment rates have been within this range only three times since 1970 and are not expected to reach that number again in the next few years.

“Proposition 23 is supported by major oil companies and those who have a financial interest in petroleum industries,” said Erika Catanese, professor of Environmental Biology at PCC. Funding for Proposition 23 has come predominantly from Velero Energy and Tesoro Corporation, two Texas-based oil companies according to the Yes on 23 campaign website.

“California is the second largest emitter of green house gases in the United States and one of the largest emitters of GHGs in the world,” according to the California General Election official voter information guide.

Supporters of Prop 23 say AB 32 will worsen the failing economy by causing energy prices to rise and more Californians to lose their jobs. “California can’t afford self-imposed energy costs that don’t reduce global warming,” according to the Yes on Proposition 23 campaign website. “2.3 million Californians are unemployed; Proposition 23 will save over a million jobs that would be otherwise be destroyed,” they said.

Solar consultant of California Green Designs, Rich LaBrie, openly opposes the initiative. At a green living expo in South Pasadena on Oct. 10, he said Proposition 23 is “potentially very catastrophic” to both the economy and the environment. “California is a driving force behind environmental legislation that affects the rest of the country,” he said.

“There are 110 days a year when the air quality in Los Angeles County is unhealthy to breathe,” said Sam Atwood, the spokesperson for the South Coast Air Quality Management District, a local air pollution prevention agency.

Atwood acknowledged that Pasadena has seen a dramatic reduction of air pollutants over the past 20 years but said, “the challenge now is how do we continue to clear pollution.”

As long as AB 32 remains active, the state Air Resources Board is in charge of creating and enforcing the new rules and regulatory programs.

Its plans are intended to reduce emission rates by 2020 to levels equal of those in 1990, an overall reduction of about 30 percent.

The plans, in their entirety, have been labeled the AB 32 Scoping Plan.

One major component of the plan entails that major air polluters commit to a cap-and-trade program, in which each establishment receives an allotment, or cap, on the amount of emissions it could produce.

They could in turn buy, trade or sell their allowances to other companies, creating a market of emissions. To comply with these rules major industrial GHG contributors would be required to submit reports of their emission levels.

Another component of the Scoping Plan is to require energy suppliers to generate at least 33 percent of their energy from renewable sources, such as wind and solar, by 2020.

If Proposition 23 passes, this regulation would be substantially delayed.

Follow: