It was revealed last week that out-of-state oil company Valero is one of the primary funders of the effort to gather enough signatures to get the initiative on the ballot.  When the dirtiness of an out-of-state campaign to hijack the California ballot process causes even its former proponents to turn their backs in disgust, one has to wonder: how good could it possibly be for California?

Early polling reveals that a majority of Californians are equally skeptical: a solid majority (66%) of Californians support implementation of AB 32, and nearly half of registered voters would vote no on the initiative right now.  The initiative’s official title  – “Suspends air pollution control laws requiring major polluters to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming until unemployment drops below specified level for full year” –  cuts though Valero’s spin and presents voters with a clear picture of what this initiative is really about: an attempt by a big, out-of-state polluter to prevent Californians from reducing pollution and transitioning to a clean energy economy.

It is no wonder that Ted Costa, being closer to the people of California than Valero is, decided he would vote no on this pro-pollution initiative too.

Not only do the very numbers the editorial cites as a “cost” actually turn out to be an economic boon for California, but AB 32 will help the economy in another way: by creating green jobs. A new study counted 159,000 new green jobs in California – everything from scientists devising new fuels and better solar panels to workers insulating buildings to cut energy use. With a median annual income ranging from $21,000 to more than $130,000, these much needed jobs will help recharge California’s economy.

The dollar amounts identified in the draft report are not “costs” because the money won’t just disappear into thin air – it will come back to Californians and to the California economy.  In addition, California’s efforts to curb global warming are resulting in other benefits to the economy – such as new jobs as a result in investments in energy efficiency and clean technologies – that are not counted in the draft report. 

It is nice to be able to add up the numbers in a table in a draft report. It is more important to understand what those numbers mean. In this case: a multi-billion dollar jump start to California’s economy.

 California is The Little Engine That Could: bravely facing the hill of transforming our state to a new, clean energy economy.  

 After passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) through the House in June, the federal government is still considering the details of a bill to reduce GHG emissions.  California, having passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) in 2006, is taking the first steps up that hill, and is bringing many others along with it.  A cap and trade program is one part of CARB's comprehensive plan to reduce state-wide GHG emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020.  The states and provinces below are all committed to or committing to GHG cap and trade programs that will also put them on track to reduce their GHG emissions.

Source: Pew Center on Climate Change

 Here are some highlights of California's preliminary draft regulations:

• Tight declining cap on GHG emissions;
• Electricity, industrial, natural gas, and transportation emissions all included under the cap by 2015;
• Possible entity-specific limit on offsets of 4% of emissions;
• Provisions for linking to the Western Climate Initiative (WCI);
• Placeholder for distribution of allowance value, awaiting recommendations from EAAC (http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/eaac/).

 The document released today is a draft, and CARB is seeking stakeholder input to help it fine-tune the regulations over the next year -- the final language will go to the Board in October 2010.  We encourage CARB to keep chugging up that hill, so that we can all slide down the other side saying "I thought we could" create a prosperous, clean economy.

They support AB 32.

They just don't want it to take effect.

Run that by me again?

There was a parade of small business representatives expressing support for Senator Dutton's bill, because they feel that AB 32 will hurt the economy and destroy jobs, thus can't afford to implement it right now.  Of course, I absolutely agree that many people across the state and across the country are hurting right now and we need to do everything possible to make sure they don't fall off the cliff of poverty. My boyfriend works for a small business that did a round of lay-offs and pay-cuts in November, and is now hoping to cripple through, so I understand the fear of wondering if you're going to get the paycheck you need to cover the rent next month. But there's a couple things I think Senator Dutton probably didn't mention when he called and asked those people to spend their day in Sacramento for his bill:

1. No regulations under AB 32 have taken effect yet, so the economic pain we are feeling right now is completely unrelated to our efforts to stop global warming.
2. Most of the regulations under AB 32 won't take effect until 2012, so arguing that the economy is bad right now so we need to delay right now doesn't make sense.
3. While other economic forces brewing over the past decade have clearly been harmful to our economy, policies which have reduced greenhouse gas pollution in California over the past several decades have actually saved Californian's money and created jobs. According to Next10, an independent, nonpartisan organization, 1.5 million jobs would be created in CA from investments in renewable and energy efficiency.  Implementing AB 32 will create hundreds of thousands more much needed jobs.
4. Doing nothing has a cost too.

Dutton and his supporters acknowledge that AB 32 is important, acknowledge that we must fight global warming, but then create a false choice between fighting global warming and having a healthy economy.  In reality, we know that procrastinating even more and letting global warming accelerate will be extremely costly.  The floods and widespread wildfires, rising sea levels, and decreased water supplies will cost California billions of dollars a year.  Billions.  That will certainly not be good for small businesses or for Californians who support small businesses.

So while I sympathize with all those facing tough economic times, I'm sorry, but delaying action on global warming won't help.  It will only hurt.