|
Proposition 23 was a California ballot proposition that was on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot.〔("Climate law to go before voters" ), ''Fresno Bee''. June 23, 2010. 〕 It was defeated by California voters during the statewide election by a 23% margin.〔(Summary of Ballot Measure Voting, California Secretary of State )〕〔(County Summary Status for the November 2, 2010, Statewide General Election ), California secretary of state, 3 November 2010〕〔(Proposition 23: Backers were outspent, out-organized ), ''Los Angeles Times'', 3 November 2010〕 If passed, it would have suspended AB 32, a law enacted in 2006, legally referred to its long name, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Sponsors of the initiative referred to their measure as the California Jobs Initiative while opponents called it the Dirty Energy Prop.〔(StopDirtyEnergyProp.Com )〕 The goal of the proposition was to freeze the provisions of AB 32 until California's unemployment rate dropped to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters. Since the rate was then at 12.4%, and it had been decades since the state had seen an unemployment rate below 5.5% for such a period of time, this wording was seen by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and others as a wording trick to delay the environmental regulations indefinitely.〔 AB 32 requires that greenhouse emission levels in the state be cut to 1990 levels by 2020, in a gradual process of cutting that is slated to begin in 2012. Reducing greenhouse emission levels to 1990 levels will involve cutting them by about 15% from 2010 levels. AB 32 includes a provision allowing the Governor of California to suspend the provisions of AB 32 if there are "extraordinary circumstances" in place, such as "significant economic harm". The supporters of Prop 23, Assemblyman Dan Logue and Ted Costa, decided to circulate a petition to accomplish a suspension of the environmental regulations.〔 Governor Schwarzenegger, as well as the major party candidates for Governor, Jerry Brown, and Meg Whitman, all stated they would vote "no" on Prop 23. Brown however favored "adjustments" to AB 32, while Whitman would have immediately suspended the law. Louise Bedsworth, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, predicted in April 2010 that total campaign spending on this proposition would top the $154 million record set in 2006 by Proposition 87.〔("California Climate Campaign Spending May Top Record" ), ''Business Week'', April 16, 2010.〕 If campaign spending on the proposition does reach that level, it could be because supporters and opponents view the battle over the suspension of AB 32 as symbolic in the larger national debate over global warming. Steven Maviglio, speaking for a group that wants to keep AB 32 intact, said, "...this could be a ground zero for the battle for the future of clean energy".〔 ==Details== 09-0094 was cleared for circulation on February 3, 2010. 09-0104 and 09-0105 were cleared for circulation on February 7. * The ballot title given to all three measures is identical. * The estimated fiscal impact for all three measures is identical. * The summary is slightly different. 09-0094 and 09-0104 both set 5.5% as the level of unemployment beneath which California's unemployment level must drop for four quarters before AB 32 could be re-instated, while 09-0105 sets 4.8% as that unemployment level. Old Ballot Label: "Suspends air pollution control laws requiring major polluters to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or less for full year". * After a California Appeals Judge ruling on August 3, 2010: Official Ballot Label: "Suspends implementation of air pollution control law (AB 32) requiring major sources of emissions to report and reduce greenhouse emissions that cause global warming, until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for full year." Official summary: * Suspends State law that requires greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, until California’s unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. *Suspends comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emissions reporting and fee requirements for major emissions sources such as power plants and oil refineries. Estimated fiscal impact: * The suspension of AB 32 could result in a modest net increase in overall economic activity in the state. In this event, there would be an unknown but potentially significant net increase in state and local government revenues. * Potential loss of a new source of state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government to certain businesses that would pay for these allowances, by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations. * Lower energy costs for state and local governments than otherwise. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「California Proposition 23 (2010)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|