Amidst the crowded ballot of initiatives for the November election is one that its proponents call the \u201cCalifornia Jobs Initiative.\u201d\u00a0 The ballot title is much longer: \u201c Suspends Implementation of Air Pollution Control Law AB 32) Requiring Major Sources of Emissions to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions that Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops to 5.5 Percent or Less for Full Year.\u201d<\/p>\n
While the majority of the $6.5 million funding in support<\/a> of Proposition 23 initially came from oil companies outside of California:\u00a0 Valero, Tesoro Companies, Flint Hills Resources, Marathon Petroleum Company, and Occidental Petroleum, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Adam Smith Foundation, California Trucking Association, and California State Pipes Trade Association have donated substantially since the ballot initiative qualified.<\/p>\n The majority of the funding for the opposition campaign<\/a> has come from a group called \u201cCalifornians for Clean Energy and Jobs,\u201d made up of wealthy individuals who are believers in global warming as a reality:\u00a0 Thomas Steyer, Robert Fisher, Wendy Schmidt, Claire Perry, L. John Doerr, William Patterson, as well as such organizations as the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Green Tech Action Fund, and the California Teachers Association.<\/p>\n Thomas Steyer<\/a>, founder of San Francisco-based hedge fund Farrallon Capital Management LLC, gave $2.5 million and promised another $2.5 million to come.\u00a0 Steyer and his wife donated about $40 million to fund renewable energy research at Stanford University last year.<\/p>\n Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger<\/a> is just as strongly opposed to Proposition 23, as he was supportive of AB 32.\u00a0 He isn\u2019t buying the report from California\u2019s Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office that shows near term job loss from implementing AB 32.<\/p>\n Opponents say that Proposition 23 would delay sensible measures to create a clean energy economy. William Sundstrom<\/a>, Professor of Economics at Santa Clara University, said \u201cThe net impact on California\u2019s employment picture is likely to be so small as to barely noticeable in the unemployment statistics\u2026. Offsetting these transitional impacts will be new \u2018green jobs\u2019 in the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors.\u00a0 Clean technology is a growth industry, and California has been a significant beneficiary of that growth\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n James Birkelund<\/a>, an attorney at Cleantech Law Partners, said, \u201cCalifornia has invested billions of dollars in clean energy technology such as wind and solar, and is well positioned to lead the nation in the rapidly expanding renewable energy sector\u2026 California already had 500,000 workers employed in green jobs, and more than 12,000 clean tech companies call the state home.\u00a0 It is estimated that Prop. 23 will reduce the state\u2019s economic output by $80 billion and cut over half a million jobs by 2020.<\/p>\n On the other side, a new study<\/a> released on October 6, 2010 by the non-profit Pacific Research Institute showed that passage of Proposition 23 would create about 1.3 million California jobs by 2020, with 500,000 of those jobs created by 2012, and 150,000 in 2011.\u00a0 The study assumes that four consecutive quarters of 5.5 percent unemployment or less would not be observed, so that implementation of AB 32 would not resume.\u00a0\u00a0 If AB 32 is implemented, they project an employment loss equal to about 5 percent of the working age population, or more than a million jobs.<\/p>\n The California Trucking Association<\/a> is strongly in favor of Prop. 23 because the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has imposed billions of dollars in high costs on trucking companies to comply with on-road and off-road diesel regulation, and fuel costs could increase another 32%, depending on how AB 32 is implemented.\u00a0 A study authored by a former Executive Officer of CARB found that the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (AB 32 Scoping Plan Measure T-2) would increase gasoline and diesel costs by $3.7 billion a year with no detectable impact on global warming and a five ton per day increase in smog-forming emissions. The increase in fuel costs would apply to everyone purchasing gasoline and diesel fuel, not just businesses.<\/p>\n Valerie Liese, Chairwoman, California Trucking Association said, \u201cImplementing AB 32 at this time would break the back of the trucking business in California.\u00a0 That\u2019s why the California Jobs Initiative is so important \u2026Right now, that represents the difference between surviving this recession or going under for a lot of our members.<\/p>\n Law enforcement<\/a> and firefighters<\/a> have voiced their support.\u00a0 Kevin Nida, President California State Firefighters Association said, \u201cThe economic crisis of the last few years has put a real strain on resources available to fund firefighters, emergency medical technicians and other public safety personnel throughout the state…The last thing we need is a law that will leave local governments with even less money to fund public safety.\u201d<\/p>\n Small businesses have joined the campaign to support Prop. 23.\u00a0 Reid Ennis<\/a>, Ennis Inc., Lakeside, CA said, \u201cWe already are burdened with so many taxes and regulations, we barely exist.\u00a0 We are down from 190 people to 46 and are losing money every month.\u00a0 With California\u2019s construction unemployment above 30% any more fuel cost increases, fees, or taxes, will destroy many more businesses.\u201d<\/p>\n Michelle Grangetto<\/a>, 5th<\/sup> Axis, San Diego, CA, said, \u201c\u2026We machine parts for aerospace, military, and medical fields\u2026another increase in electricity will force us to relocate to another state.\u201d<\/p>\n