California Center for Sustainable Energy

Just because unemployment is high

We’ve accomplished a great deal in cleaning up California’s environment, particularly the air quality, during the past fifty years. You may not remember the dirty 1960s with all the air pollution and large amounts of trash on our roads and chemicals in our rivers and streams, but we are much better off today.

We improved the environment by a combination of personal commitment and aggressive state legislation in the 1970s that took bold steps to reduce the waste stream, curb atmospheric particulates and protect natural resources. We stuck with it – just like we need to do now with the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 ( AB 32).

AB 32 is best described as a timetable for reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. That’s roughly a 25 percent reduction from what we would emit under non- AB 32 conditions and would bring California into near compliance with the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol aimed at fighting global climate change. Admittedly, the issues and actions resulting from this law are complex and evolving, but controversy over its effects on jobs has reached a crescendo recently.

A political tempest is brewing to suspend all rulemaking and regulation under the AB 32 until California’s unemployment rate declines from the current 12 percent to the 2006 level of 5.5 percent. Proponents are pushing the idea hard in campaign ads and circulating a statewide initiative, called the California Jobs Initiative, to put the matter on the November ballot. Their basic thinking runs along the lines that AB 32 will drive big business out of the state and cost small businesses too much, resulting in even greater unemployment and lost tax revenues. It reminds me of the auto industry’s initial knee-jerk reactions to seat belts, antilock brakes and lower mileage standards. We all know what happened to the U.S. auto industry when it didn’t change with the times.

It’s clear that those who oppose AB 32 just don’t like it, for a whole host of reasons, and are tying it to jobs because unemployment is a hot button. This is a red herring to pit the unemployment rate against the desire of society for clean air, a healthier environment and a better chance of limiting global environmental change. The more likely scenario is that AB 32 will create jobs in the energy industry, construction, transportation and related product manufacturing that will lead to even more jobs to support and build the infrastructure for clean technologies. Just because we have 12% unemployment today doesn’t mean we should stop wanting and working toward a healthier and more stable future environment.

Opponents of AB 32 cite experts, reports and studies to backup their case. Yet, plenty of studies also assert that AB 32 will either have a neutral or positive impact on the future economy. I won’t try to convince you that we should continue on with enforcing AB 32 with statistics and figures as you can read the reports yourself.*

Unfortunately no one has a reliable economic crystal ball to foretell the exact outcome; however, the record in California shows that environmental protection and economic growth go hand in hand. Since the 1970s, California has been the nation’s leader in environmental protection and energy policies. We’ve managed to combine rising living standards with a substantial decline in per capita energy consumption and kept total carbon dioxide emissions more or less flat for two decades even as the state’s population grew rapidly. AB 32 is critical to the state’s continued progress in green-clean innovation and leadership.

At CCSE, we promote change for a clean energy future. We see an increasing number of business opportunities and plenty of new jobs being created in energy efficiency, solar and other renewable energies, alternative transportation, green building and myriad sustainable industries as a result of AB 32. For every business owner I see wringing his or her hands over AB 32, I see others who are already converting to clean diesel and electric vehicles, installing renewable energy systems and learning that state-of-art energy efficiency strategies can cut their utility costs and improve business profits.

CCSE cannot support any attempt to turn back time on continuing to enforce AB 32. Instead, what we need to do now is get to work with training programs and creating opportunities to put people to work in clean tech jobs that will take us to a sustainable energy future. For example, at CCSE we’ve increased our staff by 25 percent in the last year and are still hiring and training.

Admittedly, change is difficult; it’s hard. But it must take place in order for us to move forward. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if in fifty years our children and grandchildren could say that we stayed the course, that we were good stewards of our environment and resources and that their world is better off for what we did.

* There is an online article by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and you can read comments from the California Business Alliance for a Green Economy.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/studies-ab32-job-creation-0358.html
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/california-business-alliance-for-a-green-economy-praises-carbs-new-economic-analysis-of-the-california-global-warming-solutions-act-ab-32-89061562.html

Continue reading April's newsletter.