Lawrence Goldenhersh writing at the Green Biz Blog has a thought provoking perspective on the future impact of Prop 23.
The November ballot represents the Normandy Invasion equivalent for national climate legislation — a historic battle whose outcome will likely have major impact on the future of efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.Goldenhersh sees three possible scenarios California voters could choose come November:
Note that under scenarios one and two, elect Brown or Whitman, with out passing Prop 23 California ends up with an economy busting Cap and Trade Program, either a state program or a federal program that will raise the cost of energy for all Californian’s. The cost of motor fuel is projected to reach $5-7 dollars a gallon under Cap and Trade. This would slow rural county tourism, maybe not kill it in a robust economy, but in an already slow economy it would have a devastating impact.1. Preservation of AB 32 and Election of Jerry Brown
Should voters choose to uphold AB 32 and also elect Brown, who has stated his opposition to outright suspension of the statute, California will move to implement cap and trade by 2012 -- with the potential to become the first state in the U.S. to put a price on carbon. . . . . should California continue with its plan to implement cap and trade by 2012, Congress will undoubtedly pass meaningful climate legislation by 2011, implementing a federal ruling to set a price on carbon by that time.2. Preservation of AB 32 and Election of Meg Whitman
If California voters preserve AB 32 but elect Whitman, who favors suspending AB 32 for a year, the result would still be to accelerate federal climate legislation. In this outcome, the California legislature and newly-elected governor will be tasked with honoring the voters' decision. History has proven it dangerous for California governors to ignore the will of the California electorate. Therefore, while this outcome might slow the charge, it will not terminate it, and Congress will still be forced to deal with California's cap and trade plans.3. Veto AB 32
Should California voters decide to abolish AB 32, the outcome could be the most dramatic for U.S. climate debate. California has a well deserved reputation for enacting regulations deemed necessary to protect the environment, such as the state's air regulations of the 1960s and 70s and today's vehicle emissions standards.Should the voters decide to nullify AB 32 and, in so doing, abandon a 40-year tradition of innovation in environmental action and policy, it would send the message to the world that climate change legislation in California is simply not affordable at this time. The result would fuel the arguments of those federal legislators favoring no action and would quell the enthusiasm of even the most ardent advocates of climate change legislation. Delay in the passage of any significant federal climate legislation is highly likely under this scenario.
The only acceptable scenario is number 3. Once again California can set the national agenda by killing the momentum for an economy busting Cap and Trade program.
Exit Question: Are your ready to make history?
