Today, the oil companies behind the plan to repeal AB 32, our landmark climate change legislation, will submit their signatures to the Secretary of State.
California voters will decide the fate of the state’s landmark global-warming bill in the November election after a big-bucks battle that may break records for political spending on an initiative.
Today, a group heavily backed by Texas oil giants Tesoro Corp. and Valero Energy Corp. plans to submit signatures for an initiative seeking to suspend AB32 until California’s unemployment rate improves dramatically. … AB32’s proponents call it a vital step in efforts to curb greenhouse gases and create green jobs. And with federal climate-change regulations stalled in Congress, the California law takes on added significance as a potential model for other states. (SF Chronicle)
Of course, the oil companies say that it “hurts jobs” without a whole lot of evidence. Of course, to the contrary, California stands as the world’s leader in clean tech. We stand an amazing opportunity to build upon that success. However, if we take a step backward, investors will shy away from the state when we are able to move forward in the future.
Look, at a time when we are facing an unprecedented environmental catastrophe, we just can’t be moving in the wrong direction. And Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner as well as nearly every statewide candidate have all taken positions favoring repeal. I think Chuck DeVore is personally emitting extra hot air just to piss off the environment, which, according to DeVore is his to exploit.
But, other statewide candidates seem to want to avoid the subject. Funny how some like to play every side of the issue.
Wow, if there were ever a time to find out who the real leaders of California are (and will be), this issue is it. We can either put our heads in the sand and buy all of the bankrupt slogans against AB32, or we can decide, as Californians, to stand up for the environment, and California, by taking on the issue of climate change and become a leader again.
I am so sick and tired of hearing how great the “Texas model” is. Well, here’s a chance to thumb our noses at the Texas model and say that we believe that the new economy is green, profitable, and equitable.
AB32 is such landmark legislation, and if we can do it right (and given the current state of our multi-layered bureaucracy, I have my share of doubts), California can lead the way to the future we’re hoping for. Just as we led the way in clean air legislation and energy efficiency, we can do it again here. We have an opportunity to educate not only the public, but also candidates who are on the fence or are afraid to take a stand. Let the defenders of the environment know that we have their back!
It’s not a question of jobs vs the environment. We heard that argument 50-60 years ago when Los Angeles tried to control air emissions. It’s no truer today than it was then. Don’t let Texas Oil spoil California.
What a poorly written law.
“While suspended, no state agency shall propose, promulgate, or adopt any regulation implementing Division 25.5(commencing with section 38500) and any regulation adopted prior to the effective date of this measure shall be void and unenforceable until such time as the suspension is lifted.”
In context, any regulation adopted prior to the effective date probably refers to regulations implementing Division 25.5.
But it might not. Taken at face value, it seems to suspend any regulation adopted.
It would be a hell of a lot more clear if it said any such regulation adopted prior to the effective date.
You’d think that a one-page law would be clear. Hell, it doesn’t even specify what unemployment figure should be used. U-3? U-6? U-13? Who knows.
———
Those absurdities aside (the California Supreme Court will almost certainly interpret “any regulation” as intended and not as written), the measure seems to be a hoax.
Someone who was really operating from a position of “I support AB32 but think we need to wait because of the recession” would have drafted a law that:
(a) suspended until a reasonable point, defined by unemployment;
(b) postponed the target date by an offset equal to the length of the suspension;
(c) established rules for future periods where unemployment rises to some unacceptably high level.
This measure does neither (b) nor (c), and the reasonableness of the trigger condition in (a) is disputable at best.
All of which goes to show: this isn’t a serious effort at reconciling the law with bad economic times.