"We are not going to sit idly by and watch you dismantle our environmental achievements...which are also economic achievements," says Carl Guardino, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents over 300 of the valley's major companies (including HP, Google and IBM).
In this exclusive Fresh Dialogues interview, we examine the controversial proposal to overturn AB 32, California's landmark climate change legislation.
Here's a recap of the issue:
AB 32 is the Golden State's attempt to cap carbon emissions to 1990 levels by introducing a version of a cap-and-trade carbon tax, which would hit polluters, power plants, refineries and cement manufacturers hard.
What is Proposition 23?
Supporters call it "The California Jobs Initiative," and point to the high cost and potential job losses of implementing AB 32; but Proposition 23's main impact would be to suspend (and effectively repeal) the provisions of AB 32.
And here's how Guardino describes it:
"A veiled attempt to dismantle California's environmental achievements.
Watch the Fresh Dialogues video:
In turn, AB 32 supporters have launched a Stop Dirty Energy Prop Campaign to thwart the proposition.
Who is behind it?
Two Texas-based oil companies, Valero Energy Corporation and Tesoro Corporation, provided the initial funding to launch the Prop 23 campaign. Valero donated over $4 Million to the cause.
Guardino's argument
"This is an economic engine not a caboose and we're not going to let folks ruin the engine that continues to fuel the renewable energy, clean green economy. It's not only good for our environment - and it's critical - it's also good for our economy and jobs; and we've proved that through innovation of products, processes and what we do with our people every day in Silicon Valley."
Last month the Union of Concerned Scientists signed an open letter in support of AB 32, stating, that the measure stimulates innovation and efficiency and help the state become the global leader in technological innovation in the sector.
Who is winning?
As of today, Proposition 23 is way ahead in the (albeit unofficial) social media popularity index with over 4,500 Facebook "likes" for California Jobs Initiative compared to just under 3,000 "likes" for Stop Dirty Energy.
Although AB 32 has an impressive list of supporters, from business organization, healthcare, and the clean tech industry (obviously); Prop 23 has some deep pocketed supporters (largely from the oil industry) who aim to dominate the debate.
It seems that in light of the economic slump, the urgency of taking action to combat global warming has been lost. California is the canary in the coal mine...and the CO2 is building up fast.
Follow Fresh Dialogues on Twitter.
Check out more exclusive interviews on AB 32 and Climate Change at the Fresh Dialogues YouTube Channel.
Follow Alison van Diggelen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/FreshDialogues
www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Koch%20brothers&st=cse
JOBS are what is needed NOW, not legislation that COSTS JOBS and does NOTHING to promote green energy....
If we made all our electricity from solar power we could make a big cut in the oil we use.
Try reading this short story about the myths about solar power.
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100825/OPINION02/100829939/
Without subsidies solar costs are a little high.
I have an array two years old. It makes 120% of the power I use! That extra 20% goes back into the grid, as it is net metering .
Please lets all try something that will help save the environment.
Nirek
co2 emissions are about 50/50 process combustion. Process emissions are those from heating the limestone releasing carbon in the calcium carbonate which bonds with oxygen in the atmosphere. Combustion from the fuel source used to heat the process.
Of course cement is a vital commodity and will be into the future for making earthquake safe bldgs and infrastructure(particularly if we go vertical and dense). It's one of the emission points that absent some form of sequestration will have emissions forever.
Calera(CA based) and a brittish firm(novacem) are both investigating/patenting alternative cement processes using different base materials. Both look to be copying marine cements from seashells IMHO. Calera's process looks to pass energy plant flue gas through seawater/briney water(Sequestering carbon in the flue gas) creating their cement. Novacem's process sounds to work at similar temps from their press. Both are interesting developments to watch as cement is/will be an important material. Can google the names for their press.
"THE chief executive of one of the country’s biggest energy retailers has warned that power prices are set to increase dramatically.
Origin Energy boss Grant King said that complying with the mandatory renewable energy target (RET) and network spending would put upward pressure on energy prices.
“That’s not of our making, or anybody other than policymakers,” Mr King told The Australian…
His comments follow both federal Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson and his opposition counterpart Ian Macfarlane warning in separate interviews with this newspaper that power prices were likely to double in the next five to seven years…
Wind farms would cost between $100 and $125 per megawatt hour, compared with $30 to $40 per MWh for coal. Moreover, the intermittent nature of wind means that it would need to be backed up with big-ticket investment in gas turbine power plants.
Mr King said he suspected that policymakers “didn’t truly know the cost” of policies that had been introduced."
"New Mexicans are rallying to fight a 21.2 percent rate increase proposed by PNM, the largest electrical system in the state. It would be the third major increase in recent years. Previous increases raised rates for some customers by as much as 24 percent.
New Mexico electricity consumers in 2011 will have to pay almost double what they did in 2007 for electricity. David King, chairman of the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) calls the rate increase a "hot potato," saying he's received "a flood of calls from ratepayers."
PNM’s rate increases are at least in part the result of renewable power mandates advocated by environmental activist groups and approved by state officials. In 2009 the New Mexico State Legislature unanimously passed a bill increasing the percentage of electricity required to be generated by renewable sources.
Previously the state’s electricity consumers faced a mandate to purchase 6 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2011 and 10 percent by 2015. The 2009 law raised the renewable power mandate to 10 percent by 2011 and 15 percent by 2015."
And if any businesses do decide to leave, let them deal with the consequences. they'll have to face the option again later if they do.
Given the opportunity, the government of France decided not to impliment Cap and Trade. Neither did the U.S.
www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Richard2?action=comments
Great Britain passed a similar law to California's. However, the new coalition government in London has now put on hold actually implimenting the law, as there is now the realization that the "clean" energy will be very expensive, and there may be energy shortages during the winter weather season, when the wind in England is not reliable.
California's law will raise the cost of energy to everyone in California, including businesses that may simply move across our state line to Arizona, Nevada or Oregon, to capture a lower cost of energy for running the businesses.
Really? You should check out Spain's economy and what happened when they started down the road of "green jobs". It was a 2 for 1 job loss to creation ratio (yes that is 2 jobs lost for every green job created).