A November 3rd Wall Street Journal Article states that a ballot measure that would have delayed the implementation of a state cap on greenhouse gas emissions in California has failed (WSJ). The vote was not a close one, with 61% against the measure to postpone the bill and 39% for it. The bill was called Proposition 23 and it created a lot of controversy. There were oil companies and other businesses dependent on the fossil fuels industry who campaigned for the proposition and environmentalist groups and “alternative energy investors” who were against the proposition. In total, the campaigns both for and against Proposition 23 spent $40 million, a sum that mostly went to advertising (WSJ).
There are, of course, legitimate arguments coming from both sides of this debate. Again, according to the Wall Street Journal article, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association said that because of the greenhouse gas cap, businesses and jobs will simply move from California to other states and countries because outside of California, they will not have to pay for their emissions (WSJ). On the other end of the spectrum, a group called the Union of Concerned Scientists claims California’s rejection of this proposition shows their belief that reducing carbon emission can help both the economy and the environment (WSJ).
This is an important issue for the energy industry. Because the proposition has now failed, I predict, like the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, that traditional energy companies that rely on fossil fuels will simply abandon California because of the increased costs. Yes, rejecting this measure is an accomplishment for alternative energy investors because they will see less of an influence of oil and gas companies and an incentive to invest in clean energy. However, I am not entirely sure how intelligent it is to scare large companies that provide large amounts of tax revenue and jobs away from a state that is facing a $19 billion deficit and 12.4% unemployment, according to the Los Angeles Times and the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics. Perhaps this sort of bill will be wiser when the economy is more stable than it is now and when other states and countries adopt the same policy. For now, I think that Californians have made a mistake.
Ball, Jeffrey. "Californians Defend Carbon Caps." Wall Street Journal (2010): n. pag. Web. 3 Nov 2010.
It really isn't a smart idea to scare away such revenue for the state but the people have spoken and they want alternative energies, which isn't so bad because they can create jobs and revenue as well. However, this is a good victory for them and I'm glad to see the result of this. It's a little surprising to see big oil's political clout is dissipating.
ReplyDelete