Apr

20 Hypocritical California

California is a wonky state and now, it seems a hypocritical one.

The Global Warming Solutions Act, which Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law in 2006, is essentially ‘Cap & Trade’ on the state level, with the lofty goal of reducing CO2 levels to 1990 levels, by 2020. While this is a goal we should all strive to attain, like the Federal Cap & Trade legislation, the law seeks to attack industry and not address the overwhelming issue of the state with the most vehicles on the road.1

Before we go any further, let’s discuss why that matters, so you will have a better understanding of the complex, yet core issue.

Cap and Trade, which is a core component of the Global Warming Solutions Act, is a system where the California Air Resource Board would oversee, monitor and implement a ‘credit’ system, which industry would use to ‘pay’ for the pollution they emit. Think of it similar to carbon offset credits people and companies buy, only this is credit based on a market trade system. The law was not approved by voters; rather it was solely passed by the legislature.
CARB would determine how much pollution X business (refiners, cement factories, power companies) produces and each industry type would be given a set number of credits per year to use; if they emit less pollution, those credits can be sold in a market to other companies that use more than their allotted credits. This creates a yearly cost of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars for businesses and, as you might expect, the cost will be passed along to the consumer. Now, the law doesn’t state specifics, but if California’s law adopts the Federal standard for this policy, refiners would not only be responsible for the pollution they emit from operations, but also the emissions from the product they create when driver use the fuels! To add to the issue, the credits issued to the refiners are far less than other industry and certainly would not cover the emissions of the vehicles that use the fuel. This would be like charging cement manufacturers for each home that uses their product or power companies for each kWh their customers use; the refiners are the only industry treated this way.

So, when you consider there are 30Million vehicles on the road in California and this is almost 2x the amount of the next state on the list, Texas, and that California accounts for 13% of the vehicles on the road in this country, there is a large issue with the consumption in the state that is not addressed. Cap and Trade is a method to curb the pollution from industry, but, as usual, the legislature in California refuses to impact the state’s drivers or impact their pockets directly. If you find this plan of attack to be anti-business, you’re correct, though it is simply how the state functions.

Presently, there is a group of refiners and citizens that formed the California Jobs Initiative Committee, which have proposed a ballot and asked that the voters to decide to postpone the implementation of the GWSA, until certain employment requirements are met (the unemployment drops from the current 12.5% to 5.5%).2 As you might expect, there is a lot of push-back from the environmentalists and Governor, but the hypocritical stance they are taking is most likely due to the fear that the initiative will pass if voted upon. This is because California has a painful record of their voters approving asinine laws and rejecting necessary ones:

· 1996 – Seismic Retrofit Bond Act (Bond Act): APPROVED. Allowed the state to sell $2Billion in bonds to retrofit bridges in the state for earthquakes. This included bridges in the Central Valley of Northern CA that were shown to never be affected by earthquakes.3

· 2000 – Proposition 22: APPROVED. Added the verbiage to the Family Code section 308.5: “Only
marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”.4 All but 5 counties approved the proposition (later struck down as unconstitutional).

· 2008 – Proposition 8: APPROVED. A constitutional amendment to state under the Declaration of
Rights (section 7.5) “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” CA has the highest gay population in the country (2-3 times that of other states) and it accounts for 3% of the state’s population.5

· 2009 – Proposition 1B: REJECTED. Would have secured extra funds for elementary schools (though it should be noted it was tied to Prop 1A, which increased the ‘rainy day’ fund, another rejected ballot, when the state was in dire financial condition).6

…the list goes on and on.

What we see today from Gov. Schwarzenegger and the environmentalists in California is a fear that the voters will be swayed by the unemployment fears, which are present and felt, over that of climate change, which are indirect and harder to feel. Californians typically do not want to spend money, unless it is for a social necessity or a perceived need, but even that is not an absolute. What we do know, however, is that passing of this proposition will prevent the inevitable expense to the citizens’ pocketbooks, for we know the cost of Cap & Trade will be passed along to the consumer. Whether or not you believe the claims of more job loss or large impact on business, there is no denying that the state (and Federal) plan of attack on the global climate issue is well intended, but poorly implemented.
It’s in this spirit that I feel compelled to point out the hypocritical actions of the leaders of the state; they have no problem pushing something to the voters when it suits them, but they don’t want to
let the people vote on something when it is counter to their agenda. While living in California, I voted against many of the asinine propositions and acts (including the Retrofit Act), only to find they were approved by the bulk of the issue-ignorant voters; I believe this ignorance of the issues, combined with the cloud of misdirection is what they fear most. Hopefully, this proposition will make it to vote and the people will decide their fate, not the state legislature. Right, wrong, or indifferent, the vote should be theirs to make.

Sources:
1 “Table MV-1 -Highway Statistics 2008 – FHWA.” Federal Highway Administration. US Department of Transportation, 30
Dec. 2009. Web. 16 Apr. 2010.
2 Lomax, Simon, and Mark Chediak. “California Climate Fight May Break Campaign Spending Record.” Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg L.P., 16 Apr. 2010. Web. 16 Apr. 2010.
3 “Proposition 192 1996 Primary Election.” Web. 16 Apr. 2010.
4 “Family.Code Section 300-310.” Web. 16 Apr. 2010. < http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode? section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=300-310>
5 “Same-sex Couples and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Population: New Estimates from the American Community Survey.” Williams Institute, The. Oct. 2006. Web. 16 Apr. 2010.
6 Bowen, Debra. “Statement of Vote.” California Secretary of State. 19 May 2009. Web. 16 Apr. 2010.