Proposition 23 is the epitome of someone wanting to do something but going about it in the completely wrong way.
The proposition calls for a postponement of California’s law on global warming, which requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas levels within the next decade to curb the negative effects on the environment, in an effort to restore jobs to the state of California.
This law, set to take effect in 2012, would be suspended until our state’s unemployment rate goes down to 5.5 percent and stays that way for an entire year – a pretty rare feat. According to an Oct. 5 article in the Daily Breeze, it’s happened just three times in the past 30 years.
Green Californians who oppose this proposition argue that this would cause California to take two steps in the wrong direction and negate our state’s image of being at the forefront of the fight against global warming.
Backed by two big oil companies, supporters of the proposition contend that by forging forward with AB 32 and trying to save our environment, the higher costs stemming from alternative energy would lead to companies leaving California, handing our state an uglier unemployment rate.
The rationale here is terribly flawed; who says companies have to flee in wholesale numbers because of global warming?
Harnessing the enthusiasm of Californians against global warming and employing those who are out of work will help solve the problem with our environment.
Companies can invest in alternative energy, hiring thousands of workers while also entering what is sure to be a highly lucrative market a decade down the line.
Even if our unemployment rate were to dip in the name of saving the atmosphere, it would be better than opting for the “quick fix” of delaying fixing the planet for merely a chance at saving the state’s job sector.
Supporters of the proposition also aren’t taking a look at the big picture, either.
By suspending operations to fix global warming, the environment would get progressively worse, the proverbial snowball getting bigger and bigger.
Eventually we would be forced to deal with the problem, and by then, should the supporters be correct, companies would run even faster from this state than if we were to tackle the issue now.
The global repercussions that would stem from suspending AB 32 would cripple all efforts at saving the planet.
AB 32 is on paper too good of a law to suspend, limiting emissions generated from transportation, industry and natural gas consumption.
It would reduce our dependence on burning fossil fuels and force us to change the way we consume energy.
Despite all of this, should AB 32 be suspended, how will preventing companies from fleeing California reduce unemployment rates? If anything, it would leave it stagnant, so ultimately voting for Proposition 23 would be hitting pause on fixing the environment and the job market.