Here’s an opinion piece I wrote for the Pacific Coast Business Times:

Prop 23, commonly referred to as the “Dirty Energy Bill” by opponents, is bad for California and bad for business. California is known as the national leader for environmental quality and health standards, as well as innovative energy solutions. However, if passed, the impact of Prop 23 would result in disincentives for innovation in order to maintain a costly status quo. The November ballot initiative would suspend AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, until the unemployment rate drops to 5.5% for 4 consecutive quarters. What the supporters of Prop 23 aren’t telling voters is that the unemployment rate has only done that three times since 1984. We all know that times are tough, but this is not the solution. We’ve already invested too much into our future to continue to stay in the past.

AB 32 was created through exhaustive and informed committee work by the state legislature through more than a year of hearings, and eventually signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2006. The law requires that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. The bill is progressive when compared to the rest of the United States, but it’s still behind the curve of the rest of the industrial world. The bill establishes a timetable to bring California into near compliance with the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol (UN protocol aimed at stabilizing global greenhouse gas emissions), which was signed by nearly all-first world (NOT including the U.S.), and even third-world, countries. AB 32 requires cleaner fuels, more efficient technology, a pay-to-pollute cap and trade system, as well as provisions that decrease greenhouse gas emissions, conserve fossil fuel, and foster green business. To think that the hard work behind AB 32 could be unraveled through the state of California initiative process is unfathomable.

The rationale for suspending implementation of AB 32 by Prop 23 supporters is that the state’s economy is too fragile to sustain the cost associated with compliance and that this would sacrifice jobs in an already depressed job market. However, not many organizations or businesses agree. In actuality, many business groups, large firms and trade associations are opposing Prop 23. Notably, these even include refiners such a Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and BP- possibly because they’ve already invested in cleaner fuel technology, and/or because they have transnational markets and expect to encounter similar regulations from the European Union. Also among those in opposition are environmental groups, health advocacy groups (e.g. the American Lung Association), local Chambers of Commerce throughout the state, a network of big names in innovative businesses ”from Apple to Yahoo,” the League of Women Voters, TechNet, AARP, and a multitude of green industry associations. Governor Schwarzenegger strongly opposes Prop 23, and with unusual unanimity, both gubernatorial candidates – Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman – do as well (The governor of California has the power to suspend provisions of AB 32 if he or she deems necessary).

Who then is for the measure? Prop 23 is largely funded (5.5 million) by three refineries – Valero Energy Corp, Tesoro Corp. and Koch Industries. These out-of-state corporations hope to avoid the expensive conversion required to meet California standards. Their real concern is their own bottom line not California jobs. In a misuse of our state’s initiative process, these outside interests aim to tie the hands of the legislature, governor, and Californians by nullifying the complex, lengthy process already undertaken to create AB 32.

Some might say that retooling to meet new requirements will not be cheap and some businesses may choose to migrate from California to a state with less healthful, and thus more harmful, standards. However the reality is that many large firms have already begun the investment. Waste Management, the trash giant, for example, planned a new methane gas collection system and began switching to alternative-fuel garbage trucks, costing about $85,000 per truck. It is unfair and unethical to penalize early adopters and then in turn create a financial advantage to the skeptics and those companies that dragged their feet.

With AB32, California is positioned to be a leader in an emerging global market for green technology. Already 500,000 green jobs exist here, and between 2005 and 2009, the field attracted $9 billion in venture capitalist funding – approximately 60% of the entire North American investment in green technologies. Green industry, supported by both private and public investment and underpinned by a technologically savvy workforce, has a powerful trajectory for future growth in high-wage high-value jobs. Its provisions should take effect as scheduled, modified only by the subsequent action of the governor or legislature as needed.

Prop 23 is an unnecessary and growth deterring measure. Only out-of-state special interests would be served by its passage, and California (And arguably the United States) would lag behind global competition in emerging clean-tech/green industries. The next global industrial revolution will be green and the State’s budding green economy is well positioned to benefit from the coming boom as long as Prop 23 is rejected.