Move to “Delay” California’s Greenhouse Gas Law Gains Steam. Gov. Pushes Back

Republican Gubernatorial candidates are only debating how best to delay the implementation of A.B. 32

(This story has been updated to reflect the statement released today by the Governor’s Office. – DN)

Proponents of clean energy and environmental laws designed to reduce the amount of Greenhouse Gases from being dumped into the air had best not take lightly the challenge to A.B. 32, the California State Law mandating changes that would reduce the state’s emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.  Proponents of a ballot initiative that would "delay" implementation of the law until the state’s unemployment level is below 5.5% for a full year submitted hundreds of thousands of signatures for certification to election officials earlier today that would place the decision on whether or not to move forward with the mandates of A.B. 32 in voter hands this fall.   The Sacramento Bee quotes one of the campaign’s leaders as exclaiming, "We’re headed to the ballot!" They have some momentum, and they know it.

As you can see by the chart below, the state unemployment level is almost triple that number, and hasn’t been at 5.5% in years. 


Critics of the "delay" language counter that the proponents know that
the unemployment rate is unlikely to dip to that level anytime soon and
the ballot measure is just a clever way of defeating the legislation.  Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,
who’s reputation as a "Green" governor rests on this legislation’s
implementation, released a strong statement slamming the backers of the
legislation as "greedy oil companies" and special interests.

The effort to suspend AB 32 is the work of greedy oil companies who
want to keep polluting in our state and making profits. AB 32 will add
jobs, create savings in energy costs and increase personal incomes. In
fact, the highest job creation California is seeing right now is in our
green economy. When I ran for Governor, I said if special interests
tried to push me around, I would push back. That’s exactly what I will
do to these greedy oil companies.

However, the coalition pushing the change has many more supporters than just a handful of out-of-state oil companies and conservative activist organizations.  Both major Republican candidates for Governor back some sort of delay for the legislation.  If you watch the video above, both Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman are tripping over each other to be the one to take the "toughest" position on delaying the law.

Just because much of the funding for the measure’s supporters,  comes from Texas-based oil firm, Valero, and by Occidental Petroleum; doesn’t mean that backlash against the environmental law is limited to well-healed oil barons.  The populist rhetoric fueling the campaign, that pits an over-reaching government that places vague green promises against small business owners who are being strangled by over-regulation, seems tailor made for a tea-party rally.  Especially when the California Small Business Roundtable estimates that implementation of A.B. 32 will cost small businesses in California about $50,000 anually and would destroy more than one million California jobs.

But does the rhetoric meet the reality?  The Bee also featured a story this weekend about one of the many green businesses that are based in California because the state’s green policies guarantees a market over the next couple of years.  The story illustrates how competition for these businesses between states is fierce.  While California has experienced a Green Jobs boom in recent years, resulting in 159,000 new jobs, states such as Ohio are jockeying to have those jobs move east, and out of the Golden State.

The good news is that a recent statewide poll, 58% of California voters still back A.B. 32.  But history has shown us that those numbers can turn around in a hurry if some of the rhetoric being pushed catches on.

  • While on campus, I was approached by a signature gatherer who had numerous petitions, among them the AB32 “delay.” When summarizing what the petition was about, he said “This one’s to support more green jobs.”

    The organizers of this campaign may find that they have less support than they think.

  • Poizner and Whitman will continue to pander to the extreme anti-environmental (anti-everything, actually) elements of their party to win the nomination. That’s politics. Poizner will probably get it – I just hope Jerry Brown will give him a good fight in June.

  • I can’t help but think oh dear; this is not good.

  • Ellen Isaacs

    I was approached by aggressive signature gatherers at our local Target store on a recent weekend; he clearly misrepresented what the initiative was about when he said it was about green jobs. There seems to be a pattern here…

  • J

    The signature gatherers get different amounts of money for signatures on different petitions. I asked, and I believe that this was one of the $1 ones. (That’s the basic: some are $2, and rare ones go up to $5).

  • Billy: “Hey gramps, why are we so screwed by global warming, didn’t you see it coming when you were younger?”

    Gramps: “Yeah Billy, we did, but people were too set in the old ways to try out any solutions. They were just so attached to their suburbs, their gasoline motorcars, their inefficient appliances and their coal plants that they thought the world would end if we rocked the boat”.

    Billy: “So that’s why we live on this houseboat?”

    Gramps: “You catch on quick boy. I call her the Anna Belle 32: Gramps’ Global Warming Solution Act”.

  • Rondo Sparks

    These idiots really don’t deserve jobs, green or otherwise. All I can say is BOYCOTT tesoro and valero – they are the two oil companies who bankrolled the anti-AB32 petition.


What Happens to Transportation Reform if A.B. 32 Does Get Repealed?

What is California’s future? This? Or more cleaner air?. Photo: Kayveeinc/Flickr Last week, the New York Times broke the news that Texas based oil companies were funding the ballot initiative that would "temporarily" place the Greenhouse Gas reforms required by A.B. 32 on hold until California’s unemployment rate reached 5.5%.  When discussing the news with […]

CA Sen. Steinberg Proposes New Spending Plan for Cap-and-Trade Revenue

Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) announced a proposed plan to create a permanent spending strategy for cap-and-trade revenue [PDF] that prioritizes investments in affordable transit-oriented housing, transit expansion, and CA high-speed rail. Unlike the Governor’s plan for this year’s budget, Senate Bill 1156 also proposes investments in “complete streets” and transit operations. Calling the […]