Ana Mendoza / The Collegian

Concerns about global warming and high unemployment rates collide this November on California’s general election ballot in the form of Proposition 23.

The passage of Prop 23 would suspend the implementation of the air pollution control law known as Assembly Bill 32 until unemployment decreases to 5.5 percent. AB 32, also known as the California Global Warming Solution Act, was passed in 2006 and was designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions known to cause global warming.

“California was very forward looking when they passed AB 32, and this is, in a lot of ways, a very cynical attempt to undo all of it in the face of what is already going to be some significant change,“ said Peter Van de Water, Fresno State instructor from earth and environmental sciences.

“The big crack we face right now is the fact that we have built economies based upon consumptions and people are not happy in not consuming,” he said. “The consumption of all that stuff is killing us.”

According to the California General Election Official Voter Information Guide, California has only reached 5.5 percent unemployment three times in the last 40 years.

“It is such a small number, giving the state of the economy,” said Fresno State economics instructor Sean Alley. “The last time our unemployment was that low was in 2006. That was during one of the expansionary bubbles we’ve had in our economy. It is hard for me to believe that we will get to 5.5 percent in the next five years. “

Supporters of Prop 23 claim that it will create more jobs in California.

“AB 32 seems to be stimulating investment in green energy; [it’s starting] a market that would not be there otherwise,” said Alley. “Getting rid of or suspending AB 32 would gain jobs in one place and lose jobs in another.”

Supporters of Prop 23 say that restriction imposed by AB 32 discourages new investments and job creation in California.

According to the argument in favor of the proposition in the Voter Information Guide, Prop 23 would help to save over a million jobs when they would be destroyed by “self-imposed energy costs” that don’t help in limiting global warming.

“We have some of the worst air in the valley, and that’s a health problem and costs all sorts of economic problems. It draws investment away; it drives talent away, causes housing prices to go down,” said Alley. “We [have] a reputation as a place with bad air and companies don’t want to come here. Lowering the cost of production here may not help us.”

Alley feels poor air quality keeps businesses away.

“If you are the CEO of a major business that could employ a lot of people and you want to locate somewhere, and you come across [the very poor air], there is no chance you are coming here, even though we have a lot of skilled workers, a lot of unemployed people, and a lot of smart people who can’t find jobs,” he said.

According to a New York Times article, “Texas Oil Firms Oppose California Climate Law”, published in April, companies from Texas are main contributors to Prop 23, Valero Energy and Tesoro Corp.
“There’s going to be a lineup of people on both sides depending on where their interests lie,” Alley said.

“Part of the reason this proposition is on the ballot is because [AB 32] is not particularly popular, especially with the large energy corporations,” Van De Water said.

“A couple oil companies in Texas have actually put in tons of money along with the Koch brothers at Kansas,” he said.

The New York Times reported in September that Charles and David Koch are billionaires from Kansas who have heavily financed the Tea Party movement and have donated $1 million to oppose Prop 23.

“Because I am an economist I don’t think restrictions are necessarily the only answer, but if you have a restriction that might help clean up the air, if you remove it, that could create some jobs but it will cost us in the green energy industry and it will cost us jobs down the road if it causes our air to be dirty,” Alley said.

Those who oppose Prop 23 feel it won’t decrease unemployment.

“A single piece of legislation seldom changes much in terms of job creation,” said Van De Water.

“[To create more jobs, we need] to support education, higher education levels,” said Lucinda Eileen, student senior at Fresno State.

Joe Burk is the owner of Shuttle Bugz, a local green transportation company in Fresno that provides pedicab services, tricycles with drivers who transport passengers in downtown Fresno and elsewhere. Burk feels dependency on oil is a big part of the problem.

“Fossil fuels are non-renewable and when they are gone, they are gone, and if we don’t have renewable energy, how are we going to keep competitive?” Burk said.

If Prop 23 passes, his particular company would probably not be affected, he said.

“People like our service not only because we don’t pollute, but because we are safe and efficient.”

Photo courtesy of Joe Burk

After the passage of AB 32, the state government acquired loans to pay for the administrative costs and implementation of the law.

If AB 32 is suspended, money will not be collected to pay for these loans. The amount according to the General Election Voters Guide will cost California “tens of millions of dollars.”

According to the General Election Voters Guide, “This would mean that other sources of state funds, potentially including the General Fund, might have to be used instead to repay the loans.”

Van de Water thinks voters should pay close attention to who is actually supporting the proposition.

“If the people that are against it have the most to gain by selling oil and gas, perhaps there is a reason why they want it to pass.”