Monday, October 25, 2010

Oil-Backed Prop. 23 Could Suspend CA Emissions Reductions, Hurt Green Startups

Oil-Backed Prop. 23 Could Suspend CA Emissions Reductions, Hurt Green Startups

VentureBeat's GreenBeat August 3rd, 2010 VentureBeat's GreenBeat By VentureBeat's GreenBeat August 3rd, 2010
  • Articles Contributed: 7
  • Comments Posted: 0
  • Leaderboard Rank: N/A
Page 1 of 2
  1. 1
  2. 2

The for planet earth takes up center stage at the proposition 23.We need green eco jobs not black oil jobs.Lets vote against 23 and keep California clean John Valadez Advocate for green laws.U.S GreenLaws Now. Amassco House of Green Knowledge and Products. - Sign the Petition | Change.org
August 3rd, 2010 Come November, California voters could have a major impact on the state’s environment. The ballot will include Proposition 23, a measure that would suspend the Global Warming Solutions Act that passed in 2006 (otherwise known as Assembly Bill 32), which called for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels (about 25 percent) by 2020. The election results will not only influence California’s atmosphere, but also the many cleantech companies working on emissions monitoring, reporting and reduction. The Golden State has been extremely progressive when it comes to the environment. It has set aggressive targets for emissions reductions, established ambitious quotas for renewable energy generation, and required major automakers to produce zero-emissions vehicles or — if they can’t — acquire the requisite credits to make up for tailpipe pollution. Considering these strides, it’s surprising that early polls show fairly even public division on the issue. Proponents of the proposition say that a focus on slashing emissions will hurt California’s economy — and particularly its unemployment rate — during an already dismal period for the state, which has been rife with budgeting issues for years. The prop would suspend efforts to curtail emissions until unemployment falls below 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. Right now, that figure stands at 12 percent. Early political indicators suggest that California will move to the right this November, with Republican challengers Meg Whitman (for governor) and Carly Fiorina (for U.S. Senate) — who have generally weak environmental agendas — gaining traction. The poor economy is clearly a factor. While tough emission cuts could eventually boost employment in the state by fostering renewable energy projects, voters are more panicked about immediate job loss and cost hikes. Proposition 23 is also being helped along by generous backers, namely massive Texan oil interests Valero Energy and Tesoro. Both companies have deep pockets, and, especially in the wake of the BP oil spill, high stakes riding on the suspension of incendiary emissions regulations. In the past, California has been a trendsetter in environmental policy, with other states closely following its lead. If AB 32 survives, oil companies are bound to see similar measures adopted elsewhere, cutting deeper into their market share. In the last week, Prop. 23 has become a major point of contention among the candidates in the running. While Whitman hasn’t come out in full support of the measure, she has recommended sitting on the issue for a year to see where unemployment is at that time. Her Democratic opponent, Jerry Brown, on the other hand, has embraced AB 32 fully, and is rallying his supporters in its defense. While the campaigns for and against Prop. 23 will no doubt pique the interest of environmentalists and oil and gas interests, many young companies have their eyes fixed on the outcome too. Venture-backed startups like Hara, Enxsuite (formerly Carbonetworks) and Enviance, which all monitor and help reduce clients’ carbon footprints, have been betting on stringent emissions reductions on both state and national levels. And now that the national climate bill — which could have set up a carbon cap-and-trade system in the U.S. — is all but dead in the Senate, state-by-state laws are more important than ever. Even less relevant companies like large-scale solar developers — think SunPower, First Solar and BrightSource Energy — all stand to benefit from steep emissions cuts that would limit dependence on fossil fuel sources of energy. General Electric, First Wind, and other wind farm developers would also get a boost, one that could allow them to eventually hire thousands of new workers. That said, many of these companies aren’t as concerned with the Prop. 23 vote, arguing that state mandates for 33 percent of energy to come from renewables by 2020 will continue to help their green operations grow. So just how contentious is the November vote expected to be? Recent poll results show 48 percent of respondents in favor of suspending emissions reductions, while 48 percent want them to continue unaltered. Industry analysts today are predicting that the proposition will fail, given that the majority of state propositions always fail. There is also the example provided by Proposition 16, which failed on the June ballot. Similarly backed by the powers that be — in that case, massive California utility Pacific Gas & Electric — that measure would have blocked local governments and municipalities from creating their own electric and gas utilities. Despite a $46 million campaign paid for by PG&E — which also tapped into voters’ economic fears — Californians voted ‘No’ on the prop. Looking at the parallels between the two propositions, this bodes poorly for Prop. 23, but well for the environment. This story, written by Camille Ricketts, was originally posted on VentureBeat's GreenBeat, an editorial partner of GreenCarReports.

ballot box

ballot box

Enlarge Photo

Come November, California voters could have a major impact on the state’s environment. The ballot will include Proposition 23, a measure that would suspend the Global Warming Solutions Act that passed in 2006 (otherwise known as Assembly Bill 32), which called for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels (about 25 percent) by 2020.

The election results will not only influence California’s atmosphere, but also the many cleantech companies working on emissions monitoring, reporting and reduction.

The Golden State has been extremely progressive when it comes to the environment. It has set aggressive targets for emissions reductions, established ambitious quotas for renewable energy generation, and required major automakers to produce zero-emissions vehicles or — if they can’t — acquire the requisite credits to make up for tailpipe pollution. Considering these strides, it’s surprising that early polls show fairly even public division on the issue.

Proponents of the proposition say that a focus on slashing emissions will hurt California’s economy — and particularly its unemployment rate — during an already dismal period for the state, which has been rife with budgeting issues for years. The prop would suspend efforts to curtail emissions until unemployment falls below 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. Right now, that figure stands at 12 percent.

Early political indicators suggest that California will move to the right this November, with Republican challengers Meg Whitman (for governor) and Carly Fiorina (for U.S. Senate) — who have generally weak environmental agendas — gaining traction. The poor economy is clearly a factor. While tough emission cuts could eventually boost employment in the state by fostering renewable energy projects, voters are more panicked about immediate job loss and cost hikes.

Proposition 23 is also being helped along by generous backers, namely massive Texan oil interests Valero Energy and Tesoro. Both companies have deep pockets, and, especially in the wake of the BP oil spill, high stakes riding on the suspension of incendiary emissions regulations. In the past, California has been a trendsetter in environmental policy, with other states closely following its lead. If AB 32 survives, oil companies are bound to see similar measures adopted elsewhere, cutting deeper into their market share.

In the last week, Prop. 23 has become a major point of contention among the candidates in the running. While Whitman hasn’t come out in full support of the measure, she has recommended sitting on the issue for a year to see where unemployment is at that time. Her Democratic opponent, Jerry Brown, on the other hand, has embraced AB 32 fully, and is rallying his supporters in its defense.

While the campaigns for and against Prop. 23 will no doubt pique the interest of environmentalists and oil and gas interests, many young companies have their eyes fixed on the outcome too. Venture-backed startups like Hara, Enxsuite (formerly Carbonetworks) and Enviance, which all monitor and help reduce clients’ carbon footprints, have been betting on stringent emissions reductions on both state and national levels. And now that the national climate bill — which could have set up a carbon cap-and-trade system in the U.S. — is all but dead in the Senate, state-by-state laws are more important than ever.

Even less relevant companies like large-scale solar developers — think SunPower, First Solar and BrightSource Energy — all stand to benefit from steep emissions cuts that would limit dependence on fossil fuel sources of energy. General Electric, First Wind, and other wind farm developers would also get a boost, one that could allow them to eventually hire thousands of new workers. That said, many of these companies aren’t as concerned with the Prop. 23 vote, arguing that state mandates for 33 percent of energy to come from renewables by 2020 will continue to help their green operations grow.

Page 1 of 2
  1. 1
  2. 2

We are committed to offering honest, unbiased reviews. Read our Editorial Policy.


More from Green Car Reports

More from High Gear Media

Buzz up!

Tags: global warming, California, California Air Resources Board, assembly, greenhouse gas

Posted in: News, Green


Meet the top commenters on the Leaderboard
Comments (2 total)

  1. By Lawrence Weisdorn #1, Posted: 8/3/2010

    Let's hope that the oil lobby does not succeed in pulling the wool over the California voters eyes.

  2. By Warren Wallis #2, Posted: 8/3/2010

    I have been in business since 1973. I have eight trucks that have to be upgraded by 1-1-13. Some can not be upgraded, four will cost $20,000 each to up grade and one that is a 2004 with no upgrade technology available. These are not over the road trucks, some of them only get used 20-30 hrs a year. If AB32 is not suspended everyone in my industry, in my area, will be closing there doors 1-1-13

Post a Comment

  • (Required)
  • (Required - will not be published, sold or shared)
  • (Optional - your 'posted by' name will link to the URL)
  • (max 750 characters)








  		• Get a new challenge
    Get an audio challengeGet a visual challenge
    Help


  • I have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use




Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. UnknownOctober 26, 2010 at 5:54 AM

    john,i love you im glad your proud of what you do i will stand by you!Robert!lol smile today

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)