15
How Prop 23 could affect jobs
Climate change headline
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: Whether it's actually true or not, it sure seems like everything in the public discourse today is about jobs. Tax policy? Jobs. Currency exchange rates? Jobs. Climate change? Also jobs.
California passed a landmark climate change law four years ago. Back then the unemployment rate here was under 5 percent. Today it's over 12.
Which gets us to the fight over Proposition 23 on California's November ballot. Prop 23 would put the climate change law on ice until unemployment drops back to around 5 percent.
From the Marketplace Sustainability Desk, Eve Troeh reports.
Eve Troeh: A Yes on Prop 23 would postpone California's climate change law indefinitely. Supporters say that would protect companies from steep fines on carbon emissions that contribute to global warming; fines that could force companies to close or move.
Yes on 23 ad: Save jobs. Stop the energy tax. Yes on 23.
And a No on 23 means the climate change law goes forward -- a law supporters say "creates new, green jobs." If 23 passes, they see disaster.
No on 23 ad: 23 would pollute our air, kill clean energy jobs and keep us addicted to costly oil. Vote no on 23.
So since when is the California climate change law only about jobs? Since oil refiners defined the debate that way with their ballot measure.
Bill Day: Don't create green jobs at the expense of already existing manufacturing jobs in the state.
That's Bill Day. He's a spokesman for Valero, a Texas company that refines oil in California. The company helped get Proposition 23 on the ballot and it's spent $4 million to support it. Other oil refiners have spent millions too.
Who's funding the other side? Silicon Valley -- venture capitalists who see the economy moving away from fossil fuels.
Alan Salzman: Where do you think the jobs of the 21st century are going to be?
Alan Salzman is CEO of VantagePoint Venture Partners. He's heavily invested in clean tech like solar power and LED lighting. He says it's short-sighted to stall on building the 21st century economy in order to help oil-dependent business.
Salzman: If you go back to New York City, 1900 to 1910, was it a time to invest in blacksmiths? And stables? The next two or three decades of rapid growth are in the clean tech fields.
He says California is a test case for whether the United States can build its own clean tech market. And investors around the world are watching.
Kevin Parker: Banks, insurance companies, the private investment force that is out there waiting to finance a move to a low carbon economy.
That's Kevin Parker, head of asset management at Deutsche Bank. He says Calfornia's climate change law has already lured billions of investment dollars into wind, solar, and energy efficiency projects. But if Proposition 23 passes, Parker says:
Parker: We have plenty of other places to go with our capital where the regulators and national governments are welcoming private investment.
Parker says the money will go to countries like Germany and China that have committed to building and selling green technologies.
This isn't lost on Kelly Budding. She protested against Proposition 23 outside a Valero gas station in downtown Los Angeles. She wants green jobs here.
Budding: The global greenhouse--[car honking]--See people support, as they drive by in their cars, running on oil.
It's true we still live and work in a fossil fuel economy. And oil refiners like Valero are hurting, because the recession's lowered retail demand for gas. Valero closed a refinery and lost $2 billion last year.
Valero's Bill Day says punishing oil refiners right now only punishes consumers, who still drive regular cars.
Day: We get around by using gasoline and diesel fuel. That's how this country transports itself. That's how California transports itself.
But there are many Californians eager to transport themselves into a clean energy world, and the new jobs that go with it. The latest polls suggest voters will strike down Proposition 23, and California's climate change law will move forward.
In Los Angeles, I'm Eve Troeh for Marketplace.
Pages
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
Proposition 23, a Big Oil backed measure, will hurt the state's strides in creating jobs. California clean energy and technology jobs have grown 10 times faster than the statewide average in the past half decade. California's nonpartisan State Legislative Analyst says that Proposition 23 could "dampen additional investments in clean energy technologies in so-called "green jobs" by private firms, thereby resulting in less economic activity."
"Salzman: If you go back to New York City, 1900 to 1910, was it a time to invest in blacksmiths? And stables? The next two or three decades of rapid growth are in the clean tech fields."
Good point. So, did New York enact exorbitantly high hidden taxes on blacksmiths, oats, stables, so that people who were stuck using horses had to pay way more money than they had before, and so everyone in the city wound up having to pay more and so have less money to spend? No, of course not. The market drove, just as it drives now, to the next innovation.
"He says California is a test case for whether the United States can build its own clean tech market. And investors around the world are watching"
A test case? You are willing to bankrupt the state and put over a million people out of work for a test case? No thanks!
I LOVE living in California. I sure hope I can afford it in the future...
Forgive me if this is a naive question, but do green tech jobs automatically go to the place where there are the most stringent greenhouse gas laws? If California were to become the nation's "clean tech market" would that necessarily mean that the creators of those technologies would necessarily make green tech goods in California or even the United States?
I'm currently working on an energy efficiency/utility management project in San Diego and nothing we're using is made in California. San Diego as a whole will be better off after my project is complete due to lower utility bills, but there will actually be fewer long-term utility jobs after we're done here. Lower utility rates might stimulate the economy here, but the jobs created by cheaper energy usually aren't green jobs.
I once read the Kyoto Treaty after listening to arguments on both sides. When all of the platitudes and eco-sounding language is boiled out, it says that developed countries must pay extortion money to less developed countries to keep their jobs in their country. It does not save one ounce of CO2 from being emitted. Copenhagen has similar language written by the UN to extort money from developed countries or have their jobs stripped from them. Prop 23 is the same issue. There are no green jobs that will replace the ones to be lost. President Obama has already complained to the Chinese that they have taken the green manufacturing jobs from US companies. Where are the green jobs to come from? How will we get the Chinese to give up that technology sector? Are those against Prop 23 having problems understanding that the US must actually produce things to continue to be a strong nation? What is the "governator" thinking?
The California Jobs Initiative (CJI) is an oil corporation farce and fraud. There is no connection, whatsoever, between greenhouse gas emission reduction and the loss of jobs. This notion is an insult to the intelligence of the people of California. In fact, there is job growth in the clean, renewable energy industry. Chevron employs 65,000 worldwide and CJI is not going to change this. The only jobs created by the oil industry are clean-up jobs after oil spills and deep water, blow-outs and pump-handler jobs. CJI will make fantastic profits for the oil industry, increase air pollution, especially in communities around their refineries and there will not be lower gas prices. Tesoro, Valero and Koch Industries are super Enrons. Since when did the oil companies start to show any concern for the unemployed and their families and for small businesses? Chevron, BP, Shell, Occidental and Exxon Mobil are silent partners in CJI.
Pages
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
