Special to The Enterprise

Proposition 23 is a contest over nothing less than CaliforniaÕs energy future. As such, it will be hard-fought, with campaign spending projected to exceed the previous record of $154 million, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

This proposition would suspend AB 32 until CaliforniaÕs unemployment rate remains at 5.5 percent or lower for four consecutive quarters. Since 1979, this has happened only three times. Thus, Prop. 23 could well confine us to our trajectory of ever-increasing environmental pollution.

AB 32, passed in 2006, designated the California Air Resource Board to develop regulations and market mechanisms to reduce California greenhouse gases to 1990 levels, a decrease of 12 percent. Reductions would begin in 2012 and gradually reach the 12 percent goal by 2020.

The primary donors to Prop. 23 are the Texas oil companies, Tesoro and Valero. Both companies have refineries in California; they are the eighth and 10th largest sources of global warming pollution. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, by early August, they had contributed $4.5 million.

Interestingly, the proponents of Prop. 23 are not arguing the science that points to our need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, they claim AB 32 will lead to increased costs and taxes and job losses. Could this possibly be right, or is this just the usual corporate greed manipulating the electorate and public policy?

The study cited by Prop. 23 supporters is the only one that backs their claims. This is the June 2009 analysis by Sanjay Varshney, dean of the College of Business Administration at Sacramento State University, and Dennis H. Tootelian, a professor of marketing and director of the Center for Small Business at Sac State.

Their report was funded by the California Small Business Roundtable. Using California Air Resources Board data, they calculated a loss of more than 1 million jobs, nearly $77 billion in lost income and nearly $6 billion in business taxes if AB 32 is implemented.

Their analysis has been evaluated by the nonpartisan Legislative AnalystÕs Office as Òhighly unreliableÓ and by James Sweeney, director of the Stanford Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency, as Òhighly biased, based on false logic and unsound economic analysis.Ó Sweeney was not funded for this work. Here are only three of his several point-by-point critiques:

** The Varshney/Tootelian report included only projected costs; they discounted the savings from fuel efficiency as too speculative to consider. Sweeney argues that savings will accrue because they are based on federal standards of fuel efficiency. Using the same CARB data, but including savings, Sweeney finds a gain of $15.5 billion to the state.

** Varshney and Tootelian inflated the cost passed down to consumers by assuming that businesses will charge customers double the actual costs to businesses.

** Varshney and Tootelian chose to ignore the economic stimulus of new green energy companies and construction and focused only on jobs lost.

CARBÕs economic analysis of March 2010 concluded that AB 32 would not affect CaliforniaÕs modest economic growth rate of 2.4 percent in the period 2006 to 2020. It will produce a 4.9 percent decrease in fuel expenditures and a reduction of 15 percent in greenhouse gas emissions.

These conclusions are consistent with the analysis of a group of 118 Ph.D. economists with expertise in California climate and energy issues. In their open letter, ÒThe Most Expensive Thing We Can Do is NothingÓ (Union of Concerned Scientists, Aug. 12), they strongly disagree that the current recession should delay implementing AB 32. Delay will increase the cost of later mitigation of environmental degradation, they argue. Decreasing local pollutants now will yield immediate benefits in health and welfare.

In summary, the only analysis that supports Prop. 23 has been soundly discredited by several diverse sources. Without a factual basis for this measure, we are left with the conclusion that the money behind this proposition is, in fact, corporate greed acting in total disregard for our California economy, environment and health.

And what is the current record holder for the most expensive campaign? The $154 million winner is Prop. 87 in 2006. This measure would have imposed a fee or tax on producers of oil extracted from California. At 230 million barrels of oil from California in 2005, these taxes would generate $4 billion over 10 years. These revenues would be applied to alternative energy programs, with funds distributed to California institutions and businesses.

The points made in 2006 were that, while California is the third largest oil-producing state, pays the highest gas prices and has the second worst air quality, it is the only state that does not collect an oil extraction fee.

Opponents of Prop. 87 cited Big Government and the lack of absolute certainty in the implementation of this proposal. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, the donors against the measure were Chevron, AERA Energy and Occidental Oil and Gas.

Prop. 87 was rejected by voters, 55 percent to 45 percent. So in 2006, we let Big Oil evade its fair share of taxes. Too bad. Those revenues would be welcome today, as we confront draconian cuts in public services and/or increased personal taxes. And we could have grown local, private enterprises in sustainable energy.

DonÕt let Big Oil put one over us again; get involved. The Union of Concerned Scientists has produced a mini-documentary to screen at several national meetings on ÒThe Dirty Energy Proposition: How Texas Oil Companies are Trying to Block Clean Energy Progress in California.Ó

Please join us Thursday, Sept. 23, from 7 to 8:30 p.m. at Davis Community Church, 412 C St. For additional information, contact [email protected] or visit http://ucsusa.org/houseparty.

Ñ Mary M. Zhu of Davis is a member of the Yolo Progressive Democrats of America.

Learn more

What: Screening of a mini-documentary produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists, ÒThe Dirty Energy Proposition: How Texas Oil Companies are Trying to Block Clean Energy Progress in CaliforniaÓ

When: 7 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 23

Where: Davis Community Church, 412 C St.

Info: [email protected] or http://ucsusa.org/houseparty

Comments

comments