"California already beat Texas in baseball this week.
And today literally less than 24 hours later, we have beaten Texas again!”
- Arnold Schwarzenegger
California has said no to Proposition 23, the controversial piece of legislation that would suspend California's strict Air Pollutions laws until the economy would improve. The defeated proposition was widely backed by several Texas based oil companies who wanted to get around California's environmental laws which are the strictest in the nation.
For the "Governator", he considers this his last victory in his political career as governor of California.
The idea that we have to sacrifice the environment for the economy no longer applies, to this day and age. We can go green and fix the economy with what California has at it's resources. I feel that it is old-thinking that we can not do both and succeed.
8 comments:
I wish they had passed the proposition. California is in desperate need of the money and no one is willing to give up any luxuries or raise taxes to get it.
When I first read Prop 23, I thought that it was "no-brainer," it should not be passed, but as I did more research, the proposition seemed more and more reasonable. The environment is extremely important, but California's economy is horrible and unemployment is high. Prop 23 would have suspended AB 32, the global warming law, which is only one environmental regulation law. California already has many laws that protect the environment and Prop 23 would not have affected any of them. AB 32 law will cause higher prices because of the costs of the regulations that businesses must comply with. Yes, California is and should continue being the leader of the environmental cause, but I think it could have waited. We just don't have the money to spend, especially when we currently have 2.2 unemployed individuals.
The "green jobs" that will be created by AB 32 still take time to create, but the impact of AB 32 on businesses will cause people to lose jobs now. The environment and the future are important, but the livelihoods of individuals are hurting now, and the children of those individuals are our future too.
Just like Mr. Silton says "It's the economy, stupid." If this was passed during a time of good economic times then no one would even think of supporting this law, but because it's hard times people are paranoid about anything were they can "lose" their jobs. Plus the economy always has it swings, investing in a green future will hurt Californian jobs in the short time, but greatly improve the employment in long run. These jobs won't be able to go overseas because since California will be the "leader" in green jobs, then no one would know how to do the tasks needed for the jobs in any other part of the world. (Which is good for California.)
I think that since people are so desperate because of the recession, they thought that this would be a good and helpful prop that will bring money into California and help stimulate the economy. I'm glad that this prop didn't pass, especially because I don't want companies from other states such as Texas coming into California and getting involved in our state.
I definately agree that we cannot do both and succeed. This prop should have been passed. By saying no to this proposition, that means the government still has to focus on maintaining the well being of the environment AND trying to improve our economy. This proposition was probably passed at a bad time. Yes, I do agree that the environment is an important aspect of our lives and if we constnatly ignore it, dire consequences will happen. However, that should not be at the top of priorities. People are constantly complaining about the high unemployment rate still and the bit of recession our economy is in right now. We need to help those pepole FIRST and focus on fixing that problem instead of simultaneously working on maintaining a clean environment. The environment can be improved at a later time, however the economy and many families need help and money NOW. Although Schwarzenegger announced they have "beaten Texas again", this should not be the focus of the proposition not being passed. I don't think it was much of a "victory" when people are still going through economic hardships and not passing this proposition certainly isn't helping.
I agree that this prop should have been passed. California's economy is in ruins. Our state is so big and we have so many national parks, i feel the enviorment isnt our biggest concern and we can worry about that later when we have the money, we can fix our enviorment. we cant have the perfect society but we can slowly work toward it.
- Vernon Wong
I agree with most of the posts here. I definitely feel that the proposition should have passed and many people have the wrong idea about proposition 23 and AB 32. In AB 32 it is required to take into consideration the economic status of California as well as considering the economic effects to low income families and businesses. Also AB 32 regulations have not gone into effect yet. Therefore, even if it was suspended, regulations would stay the same. I think that many inaccurate accusations of proposition 23 has caused people to vote no.
There will alway be people complaining about the economy and the high price of environmental regulation, but while the economic problems can be fixed over time, the environmental problems can only get worse. If people don't realize that the damage caused to the environment year after year is irreversible and that the Earth is much harder to rehabilitate than the economy of a particular state, only more and more destruction will be piled on. We will have to deal with our environmental crises eventually, and they will only get worse. The concept of "eventually" seems to have been a favorite of the generations before us, but our generation should be the first to make our real "home", the Earth, and its condition the highest priority. It's is fantastic that this proposition did not pass.....and that we beat Texas. GO GIANTS!
Post a Comment