Pros and cons of Prop. 23

California has spent much of its history vying for sustainable living.

But the fight that has put California at the forefront of the battle against climate change may become too expensive to keep up. With California’s unemployment rate at 12.4 percent, some argue that now is not the time to take such costly measures.

Proposition 23, up for a vote this November, seeks to delay action against climate change until California’s unemployment rate experiences a significant decrease.

The proposition would suspend Assembly Bill 32, which aims to reduce California’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, beginning January. The proposition is dubbed by supporters as the California Jobs Initiative, while opponents call it the Dirty Energy Proposition.

“Basically, Prop 23 says that we shouldn’t put AB 32 in effect because the economy isn’t good yet ““ we can’t afford that right now,” said Alisan Amrhein, a fifth-year environmental science student.

Proponents of the proposition hope to reach four consecutive quarters of 5.5 percent unemployment before implementing AB 23. According to Yes on 23, the delay would save more than 1.1 million jobs that may be cut in the process of switching to renewable energy.

However, there is little correlation, if any, between unemployment and air quality, said Stephanie Pincetl, adjunct professor at the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability.

“We are just in a difficult economic time, and it has very little to do with (environmental) law,” she said. “I think it’s a low-ball appeal to the unemployed.”

On campus, Proposition 23 has been the center of much student activity.

Nearly 40 students gathered in Meyerhoff Park on Oct. 15 in a protest hosted by E3, a UCLA environmental group. Participants emphasized the importance of AB 32, which they say will develop sustainable energy and create more than 500,000 new jobs in the environmental sector.

“The green job industry is the fastest growing job market in California right now,” said Amrhein, who participated in the protest. “Also, 5.5 percent is an incredibly low percentage; it’s only been reached three times since 2003.”

However, before the green jobs can be created, taxpayers must provide funds to develop a cleaner means of energy.

As a result, there may be a significant rise in energy costs if California proceeds with AB 32. Proponents of Proposition 23 speculate a 60 percent increase in electricity prices, with rises of similar proportion in gasoline and diesel prices.

Tessa Jorgensen, program director of the UCLA Objectivist club LOGIC and a fourth-year philosophy student, said she thinks voters would rather not spend their money on costly new energy sources.

“Taxpayer money should go to whatever citizens want to use ““whatever is most efficient and is best priced,” Jorgensen said.

Yet in spite of the cost, suspending AB 32 will only put the state at a disadvantage in the long run, Pincetl said.

As California waits to reach its unemployment target, other states and countries will be able to prepare for the impacts of climate change.

“Continuing to use fossil fuels will only make California more vulnerable to oil shocks, and people will be even worse off,” she said.

Though developing cleaner energy sources may take additional time and effort, it is vital that California begins taking steps in that direction, Pincetl said.

“Fossil fuels are not endless, so it makes sense to carefully and systematically create an alternative,” she said.

A public debate open to students will be held tonight at 7 p.m. in the UCLA Anderson School of Mangement’s Korn Convocation Hall. Hosted by the UCLA IOES, KPCC Southern California Public Radio and the Los Angeles Times, the event will explore the proposition’s implications on businesses, the economy and the environment.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *