Key factors clear up complicated prop

Some causes are just perpetually in the limelight: Earthquakes. Budget crises. Lindsay Lohan.

These days, it’s hip to wax eco-friendly, which explains some of the uproar on campus surrounding Proposition 23, the motion to repeal California’s 2006 Air Pollution Control Law (A.B. 32).

Sandwich boards were worn proudly. Fliers were distributed aggressively. Free California Public Interest Research Group T-shirts reading “VOTE NO Prop 23” were stuffed into the bicycle baskets of unsuspecting students while they were in class, probably learning the policy strategy that led to the proposition being put on the ballot in the first place.

Rita Yeung | Daily Trojan

Today, eligible students will hopefully flock to their nearest designated voting areas to decide Proposition 23’s fate.

Most will probably have worked through any confusion by the time they head to the voting booths. But if they haven’t, it would certainly be understandable.

The information moderate voters might have perused in order to be swayed one way or the other is complicated, to say the least.

For instance, the California Official Voter Information Guide, which includes pros and cons to each proposition, has a testimonial from the American Lung Association in California that reads, “Prop. 23 would result in more air pollution that would lead to more asthma and lung disease, especially in children and seniors. Vote NO.”

A few paragraphs lower: “Proposition 23 doesn’t weaken or repeal the hundreds of laws that protect the environment, reduce air pollution, keep our water clean and protect public health. Proposition 23 applies to greenhouse gas emissions, which the California Air Resources Board concedes ‘have no direct public health impacts.’”

In situations where both parties are at least partially right, it’s hard to know who’s more right. Proposition 23 is not the Pandora’s box of pollution and oil company porkbarrel that its opponents make it out to be, nor is A.B. 32 the financial black hole bemoaned by the proposition’s supporters.

What gives Proposition 23’s opponents the edge is a combination of a crucial provision buried within the text of A.B. 32 and the potential of the green job market in California down the road.

In “Miscellaneous Provisions,” A.B. 32 states that “In the event of extraordinary circumstances, catastrophic events or threat of significant economic harm the governor may adjust the applicable deadlines for individual regulations, or for the state in the aggregate, to the earliest feasible date after that deadline.”

This means that if A.B. 32 proved too unmanageable a strain on California’s economy, as Proposition 23’s supporters suspect it might, it could be suspended for a period of one year while the governor assesses the best way to maintain it without damaging the economy, budget and job market.

Thus, voting no on Proposition 23 does not sentence California to go down with a sinking piece of legislation, should A.B. 32 prove possible in the long run only at the expense of the state budget.

Then there’s the green jobs market. Skeptics and non-believers have doggedly reminded us that alternative energy jobs in California compose a meager 1 percent of the state workforce.

To base a vote against Proposition 23 upon the argument that green jobs make up for the burden A.B. 32 places on our economy is naïve. But a more logical, big-picture approach to California economics seems to justify A.B. 32 as well. The green jobs market has skyrocketed by more than 36 percent in the last 15 years, leapfrogging the growth rate of the entire state labor force.

Clearly this isn’t enough to salvage California’s economy and high unemployment rate on its own, but consider how obscure a field alternative energy was 15 years ago, and how much publicity and funding it receives today.

As the public becomes increasingly disenchanted with the nation’s dependence on oil, and as its savvy about the consequences of pollution grows, alternative energy only picks up more speed.

There’s a reason that the words “alternative energy” and “future” are thrown together as often as they are. It might not be California’s breadwinner at the moment, but it’s not unreasonable to think that laws like A.B. 32 will end up paying for themselves, if not as soon as we might like them too.

It’s also hard to get around the fact that Proposition 23 will only reinstate A.B. 32 when California’s unemployment rate dips below 5.5 percent, something that will be accomplished in roughly the same time frame as Meg Whitman winning the majority of the Latino vote.

Proposition 23 isn’t a cut and dried issue. As Whitman, who opposes the proposition, has proven, it’s not as simple as voting along party lines, and it’s not just a matter of deciding whether your allegiances lie with the economy or with the environment.

Many voters will likely recall only the fliers and the sandwich boards and reflexively vote no. But they should also be apprised of what exactly the proposition means for the future of California.

We have to take the leap of faith with alternative energy and green agendas eventually — if we abandon them every time the economy is struggling, we’ll never get any decisive environmental policy off the ground. The safety net in A.B. 32 gives us a chance to explore how the regulation will play out without tying policymakers’ hands or handicapping the struggle against unemployment.

At least for now.

Kastalia Medrano is a sophomore majoring in print and digital journalism and editorial director for the Daily Trojan. Her column, “Green Piece,” runs Tuesdays.

5 replies
  1. DrClue
    DrClue says:

    I’ve already voted NO ON PROP 26
    I’ve already voted NO ON PROP 23

    Eventually our economy will recover from “The free market will regulate itself”, and
    at that time there will be more jobs either way, but the choice really becomes
    do we focus on a future that is as long lasting as sun rises or as dead end as dinosaur juice.

    Move forward.

  2. Carol Norris
    Carol Norris says:

    There’s a reason “green jobs” and “future” are often linked – clean technology and clean jobs are the fastest growing industry in California. Not too long ago, they said computer technology was just a “niche market” for geeks who wanted to play around, and Facebook was this local idea to get girls. When it’s a good idea, it explodes! And, a clean environment and green jobs are a great idea, and a big win-win! Vote NO on Prop 23!

  3. Andrea Buffa
    Andrea Buffa says:

    I hope everyone will vote NO on Prop 23 today. Right now California has an edge in the global clean energy economy and is positioned to compete with China and the European nations that are already ahead of the United States in transitioning to clean energy. Clean energy jobs in California grew by 5 percent during the recession while overall jobs declined. But Prop 23 would take away that edge and send us back for many more years at the beck and call of the oil and gas companies. If you want a clean energy, good jobs future, vote NO on Prop 23!

  4. Locke
    Locke says:

    Do you students not want to have any jobs available in this state at all? Then by all means vote no on 23.

    The science isn’t even there to support the draconian measure of AB 32.

  5. Earl Richards
    Earl Richards says:

    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 taxpayer, who 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. Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell are silent partners behind prop 26.

Comments are closed.