On Oct. 4th, 2010 the Burlingame City Council adopted a resolution officially opposing California State Proposition 23, the "California Jobs Initiative". The City's resolution is also supported by the Citizens Environmental Council of Burlingame, a member of the "NO ON 23" Coalition.
In 2006 California adopted Assembly Bill 32 (AB32), the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB32 moved California to the forefront of the clean energy and technology industry. Proposition 23 is principally funded by two Texas oil companies and is designed to stop the enactment of AB32 until California's unemployment falls and stays below 5.5% for a year. Prop 23 will effectively put AB32 in permanent abeyance, as a 5.5% unemployment rate has only been met three times in the past 40 years. The suspension of AB32 jeopardizes the progress made towards cleaner California air and creates business uncertainty that could reduce future California clean-tech investments and job growth.
A September 12, 2010 San Francisco Chronicle story in opposition of Prop 23 by Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin Group, stated that California's clean-tech industry received over $2 billion or about 60% of all North America clean-tech investment following the passage of AB32. The clean-tech sector is now one of the fastest growing job sectors in the State, and California is home to 7 of the top 10 clean-tech businesses in the U.S. California's Global Warming Solutions Act was passed in 2006 to improve and protect air quality in California. Prop 23 undermines existing California law and jeopardizes the health and safety of all California residents.
Additional information about the NO ON PROP 23 CAMPAIGN and the Citizens Environmental Council of Burlingame is available at www.burlingamecec.org and http://www.stopdirtyenergyprop.com. The Citizens Environmental Council of Burlingame invites you to join the campaign, get informed and vote!
I recall reading the opposing view a couple weeks ago in the SF Examiner.
The part that stuck in my mind was:
Like all geographic entities, California has certain long-term characteristics — climate, available resources, geographic location,
trading partners, ad infinitum — that determine in substantial part the long-run comparative advantages of the state in terms of economic activities and specialization. Opponents of Prop. 23 can talk all they want about “green jobs,” but the larger reality is that such employment represents less than 3 percent of state employment even under an absurdly expansive definition. More fundamentally, without a dramatic change in the state’s industrial mix there is no evidence that the central employment/energy relationship is changing. Translation: “Green” employment cannot become important without massive subsidies.
The whole thing is at: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/oped_contributors/To-spur-job-growth-in-California-we-can-start-by-passing-Prop-23-104917999.html#ixzz138EzkeQ1
I may still vote No, but I want to know what that will mean in the big picture.
Posted by: Joe | October 22, 2010 at 04:10 PM