California Proposition 23 even more harmful than it initially looked....

Today's post: Wednesday, 8-25-2010

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 4 years from now.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Today’s post:

California Proposition 23 even more harmful than it initially looked.…

About a week and a half ago on Monday, 8-16-2010, The San Jose Mercury News ran a story titled:

“Global warming measure could suspend other landmark environmental rules”

It was written by their Paul Rogers.

Here’s a quote.:

“A November ballot measure that would suspend California's landmark global-warming law could also end up rolling back some of the state's other sweeping environmental standards -- including rules that require utilities to generate a third of their electricity from renewable sources and programs requiring oil refineries to make cleaner-burning fuels.”

Yes on 23 spokesperson Anita Mangels agreed with that assessment. :

“The two main rules that would be suspended, Mangels agreed, are Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2009 executive order requiring Pacific Gas & Electric and other utilities to produce 33 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, and the state's "low carbon fuels standard," an executive order Schwarzenegger signed in 2007 requiring oil companies to reduce the carbon content of their fuel 10 percent by 2020.”

Combined these two rules are designed to cause the installation of enough solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources to begin to make a real difference in California’s energy mix and to begin to use less oil and natural gas as well. And, if it does work out well here, the rest of the country is likely to copy California at least in part.

(This is of course exactly what the oil companies paying for the Yes on 23 campaign hope will never happen. They could care less about California jobs. All they care about is maintaining our addiction to their oil.

They even wrote proof of this into Proposition 23. Proposition 23 is billed to the gullible who want to avoid slight increases in gasoline prices and utility bills as a “postponement” of these laws and rules until the economy is better.

Under Proposition 23, AB 32 & these 2 key rules would be suspended until unemployment falls below 5.5 percent for a year from the 12.3 percent it is now in California. But if I remember correctly, the proposition also says for four consecutive quarters. Note that it does NOT say until unemployment goes to 8.9 percent or below for two quarters – something that might actually happen in the next two to five years. Given the growing global economic competition, the increase in energy prices from peak oil and global increases in population, and the endemic and slow to fix increases in health care costs, the chances of unemployment falling to below 5.5 percent in California in the next hundred years approach zero, let alone doing so for four consecutive quarters.

Of course, despite being very short-sighted otherwise, the oil companies surely know this.)

We need to move to dramatically less use of oil and less use of natural gas although not to the same degree. AB 32 and these two rules that Proposition 23 would cancel would actually get us started to doing so enough to fight global warming a bit.

Even more important in my view, is that it will begin to protect our economy from the coming effects of peak oil. Those two rules and AB32 that Proposition 23 would cancel I believe may save us from economic disaster within 15 years from the economic threats posed by peak oil.

So, to put it mildly, passing Proposition 23 to ensure this never happens, will instead ensure economic disaster and massive job losses within 15 years instead in California.

We also will lose one of California’s best sources of new jobs in the clean energy industries affected.

In Paul Rogers’ article I found this.:

“"If we don't go forward with 33 percent renewable standard for California's energy supply, we undercut all those companies and entrepreneurs creating jobs in solar, wind, biofuels and other renewable forms of energy," said Carl Guardino, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a San Jose organization that represents more than 300 companies and that opposes Proposition 23.

"We're saying let's take a U-turn to yesterday and be totally dependent on fossil fuels, rather than California leading the way to a renewable economy," Guardino said.”

But, that’s just the beginning. Passing Proposition 23 will also either suspend “60 state regulations, including rules to reduce smog from ships, certain chemicals in air conditioners and even a 2002 state law that requires automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent on new cars by 2016.

"Every measure to reduce greenhouse gases in California is at risk," said attorney Tom Adams, chairman of the California League of Conservation Voters. "All the regulations California has adopted for a clean energy future could be invalidated." “

Next in his article is the real motivation for the oil companies funding the Yes on 23 campaign.:

“Supporters of Proposition 23, which so far has been largely funded by oil companies Tesoro and Valero, acknowledge the measure would suspend several state regulations.

Most notably is the proposed "cap and trade" plan by the California Air Resources Board, which requires oil refineries, cement kilns, power plants and other large sources of greenhouse gases to limit their emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that the majority of the world's climate scientists say are warming the planet.”

More proof of the oil companies intent is written into the proposition itself. Paul Rogers’ article has this.:

“Billions of dollars could hinge on one part of Proposition 23. It says:

"no state agency shall propose, promulgate, or adopt any regulation implementing (AB 32) and any regulation adopted before the effective date of this measure shall be void and unenforceable until such time as suspension is lifted."

Environmentalists say that means potentially any one of the more than 60 rules and laws that the air board is counting on to meet the global warming target could be tossed out.

One, for example, is a rule the air board passed in 2007 requiring large ships to shut down their engines and plug into the electric grid at port. The goal was to reduce diesel soot in towns such as Long Beach and Oakland where it has been linked to high asthma rates. But the rule also would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is counted by the air board toward the plan implementing AB 32.”

The balance of his article basically says that the people with the Yes on 23 campaign say it won’t be that destructive and some of those things will be spared.

But, the article also makes clear that anything that is in that list that is spared will then be taken to court to postpone or stop with arguments that 23 says it should stop.

So, anything that is not clearly included will be slowed or stopped anyway.

In the end, only the attorneys handling these lawsuits and the oil companies will benefit if Proposition 23 passes.

It will reduce new job creation and increase unemployment over what it would have been otherwise.

That’s because for sure there will be fewer new jobs in California if 23 passes.

Clean tech, even with all the harm that befell its component companies from the recent credit freeze, actually has continued to ADD jobs during the recession while nearly every other sector of California’s economy was losing them.

That will get better if 23 is defeated and AB 32 is implemented. Even more clean tech jobs in California will be created.

So a vote against 23 is a vote for MORE California jobs.

How about lower gasoline and transport costs and utility bills?

Because of the coming effects of peak oil and population growth and more economic growth in the rest of the world, Proposition 23 is penny wise and ten dollar bill foolish, literally.

In the first year after it passed if that happened, gasoline might cost the same or 5 cents a gallon less than it does now, subsidized by the oil companies to “reward” us for our stupidity in their favor.

But within a year to ten years gasoline will cost from 20 cents to $3.20 a gallon or even MORE than it would have had Proposition 23 failed to pass!

We’ll feel the full effects of peak oil and rising world oil prices since we won’t have gotten a running start on creating alternatives and they won’t be in place to protect us!

This will cause more increases in unemployment and cut back further on new jobs.

If 23 fails and AB32 and the other related rules are implemented, gasoline may go up 10 or 15 cents a gallon more than it would have given the status quo – initially.

But the run up in gasoline prices from a year to ten years from now will be about HALF of what they would have been with Proposition 23.

So, if you want a strong California economy,vote NO on Proposition 23!