Yesterday the San Diego Union Tribune ran two dueling columns on Prop 23, which would destroy California’s green jobs economy and efforts to address global warming. The anti-Prop 23 article, by John Reaves of Citizens Climate Lobby, was a good articulation of the reasons why Prop 23 would be so damaging.

The pro-Prop 23 article, by Bryan Bloom, made a number of deeply flawed statements that need a strong rebuttal. So that’s what I’m going to do here, to start off the week. Much of his argument is of the typical “government taxes and regulates too much,” but Bloom adds some other pieces that should be dealt with more directly:

A California State University study estimates an average family cost of about $3,900 per year, a small business cost of about $50,000 per year and a total loss of output in the range of $180 billion in order to comply.

But what of the cost of doing nothing? Bloom and Prop 23 backers assume that the cost of doing nothing is zero – that if we “suspend” AB 32, then we save all that money.

This is not so. Climate change costs us all a lot of money already, from higher firefighting costs and home insurance premiums to lost jobs in the wineries and agricultural industries when their work is disrupted by extreme weather events. San Diegans should be concerned about rising sea levels, which won’t come cheap.

Bloom’s analysis also ignores the fact that AB 32-spurred innovation will help us save money through the development of more efficient uses of energy. California has already led the way on this. Our air pollution laws, the nation’s strictest, have dramatically slashed (though by no means eliminated) smog, while also helping spur innovations that save us money at the pump or save on our electrical bills.

Bloom’s op-ed also relies on a flawed Legislative Analyst’s Office study of AB 32, which I debunked here at Calitics a few months back. In fact, there is considerable evidence that AB 32 has already fueled the growth of a green jobs and clean energy economy in California that is one of the only bright spots in our otherwise dismal economic picture.

That dismal economic picture is used by Bloom as justification for “suspending” AB 32:

That’s why so many voters and small businesses are supporting Proposition 23, which would temporarily suspend costly AB 32 regulations until California’s unemployment rate reaches 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters, a threshold reached numerous times in recent years, according to the state’s Employment Development Department.

Notice how Bloom fudges the numbers: “numerous times in recent years.” That’s because the truth is damning. Since January 1975, the 5.5% for four consecutive quarters threshold has only been met three times – and for short periods:

1. November 1988 to August 1990

2. February 2000 to July 2001

3. April 2006 to September 2007

If you believed that climate change was a serious problem, it wouldn’t make any sense to support this proposal, which would have action on climate change move only in fits and starts.

And that’s even if it were to move at all. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, even if job growth matched the four fastest years of growth during the ’00s bubble, we wouldn’t be at 2007 levels of employment – required under Prop 23 to revive AB 32 – until April 2021 when you account for population growth. Prop 23 would likely “suspend” AB 32 for eleven years – and that’s under the best-case economic recovery scenario.

Bloom also argues that California can’t solve global warming on its own:

California produces only a tiny fraction of the world’s greenhouse gases. Without the rest of the world following AB 32-like rules, California could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to zero and still have no impact on global warming.

Of course California can’t eliminate global carbon emissions on our own. This is obvious and not in dispute. But neither was that the point of passing AB 32. As was widely acknowledged in 2006, AB 32 was passed to kickstart a national and, eventually, global effort to force reduction of carbon emissions. If Prop 23 fails, it will be a huge signal to Congress that real action on climate and energy is popular with voters. Bloom and other right-wingers are actively trying to stop California from providing progressive leadership by destroying AB 32 before it can spread.

Ultimately Bloom’s argument rests on a defense of the status quo – that everything is just fine in California, and that all AB 32 offers is higher costs. It only makes sense if you do not believe global warming is a serious issue. If you do, it does not make sense to support Prop 23, as it will ensure California does absolutely nothing to prepare for it or build a more sustainable economy to meet the challenges of the 21st century.