Proposition 23 - The Job Killer

Jobs or the environment - that is the choice presented by Proposition 23, a ballot initiative sponsored mainly by oil refiners, which proposes to suspend California's greenhouse gas law, AB 32, until unemployment drops below 5.5% for a year. But that is a false choice. The choice we really face is about the short term versus the long term.

The argument for Proposition 23 is simple - limiting greenhouse gas emissions under AB 32 will cost money, and will likely cost jobs in industries that generate greenhouse gasses. Based on that logic, Proposition 23 would only allow implementation of the greenhouse gas reductions currently in California law if California unemployment drops below 5.5% (it is currently over 12%) for a year.

But if California unemployment stays higher than 5.5%, or even if it drops to 4%, but bumps up to 6% after three quarters, then California would take no action to reduce greenhouse gasses.

Under Proposition 23, regardless of why unemployment is higher than 5.5%, California would take no action to reduce greenhouse gasses. Even if unemployment is high because jobs are being lost due to climate change - think of ski resorts closing due to no snow, fisheries destroyed due to changes in water temperature, beach resorts and airports damaged by higher sea levels, redwood forests dying from heat, valuable crops lost due to extreme weather conditions, and rivers running dry - we still would take no action.

The logic of Proposition 23 is the logic that says don't limit logging until all the trees are gone, because limiting logging takes away logging jobs that could last a few more years, or don't limit fishing until all the fish are gone, because limiting fishing takes away fishing jobs that could last a few more years. But how many logging jobs are there when all the trees are gone? How many fishing jobs are there when all the fish are gone?

If Proposition 23 passes, the oil refiners and other carbon-intensive industries who are backing it may get to make their profits for a bit longer. But at what long term cost? What happens when California and the rest of the world start really suffering from the effects of climate change? The potential job losses could make us nostalgic for the time when unemployment was only 12%.

Is it worth gambling with our economy, our health, perhaps even our survival, so that a few large companies can squeeze out a few more profitable years? The short term benefits to Valero and Tesoro are not worth the long term costs to every Californian and every California business. Vote no on Proposition 23 - we cannot afford it.

The Oil Empire Strikes Back

I don't actually think that oil companies are inherently evil. Really. But there is a problem when large, wealthy corporations act as though their only responsibility is to maximize short-term profits, at the expense of our health, our communities, and perhaps even our long-term survival.

The bigger problem is that under current law, the corporations are largely correct in that assumption. We need to change the laws governing corporations, so their responsibility under the law extends beyond their most recent quarter's stock price. Instead of relying upon the courage and conscience of a relative few corporate executives who have embraced social and environmental responsibility, we need to raise the lowest common denominator, so that all corporations must take the interests of people and the environment into consideration.

If we did that, then the Texas oil companies Valero and Tesoro would not be trying to eviscerate AB 32, California's landmark law on global warming. As oil companies that operate refineries in California, Valero and Tesoro must believe that implementation of AB 32 will result in them selling less gasoline. Less gasoline sold means less $$$ in their pockets. So they are trying to halt implementation of AB 32: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100404/ap_on_bi_ge/us_calif_climate_law_backlash.

Burning more gasoline is bad for people's health and the environment, and global warming may be a threat to human survival. Valero and Tesoro know that. They just don't care. We can make them care, by passing laws that require higher levels of corporate responsibility and accountability.

In the meantime, we should ignore their arguments that we should sacrifice our health, our environment, and our lives on behalf of their stock price.