[Student Reporters] Reflecting on Proposition 23
By Bernard Koh Oxford Academy Grade 10
A Public Policy Institute of California poll surveying 1067 people from October 10 to 17 2010 found that support for Proposition 23 was steadily decreasing as the mid-term election approached in November 2010. The proposition would have suspended AB 32 the "Global Warming Act of 2006" which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
Just a month before the poll the approval rate was 43% and the disapproval rate was 42% among voters. These statistics however changed as more Americans began to see the battle between the lines.
Law AB 32 is highly unprofitable to many corporations so they pushed Proposition 23 to postpone the cut-down on emissions until unemployment rates were down to 5.5%. Their justification: efforts to reduce emissions would mean a loss in profits and consequently more employee cuts and lay-offs. Supposedly Proposition 23 would have helped prevent poor Americans from losing their jobs and income.
Yet by enacting AB 32 more jobs would have actually been created than lost. In the current market the fastest growing industry is green energy. In order to cut down emissions industries must naturally turn to green energy which in turn opens up more places for employment in that field.
In reality Proposition 23 was not to benefit people; it was suppose to keep more money in the pockets of large industries. Although it may seem at first to be a reasonable contract Proposition 23 was a major step backwards both economically and environmentally.