Wait Till Things Are Better To Screw Them Up

A ballot initiative working its way to the people of California is threatening the progress that the state has made towards being a leader in the green economy. Measure 94, which is currently waiting for the attorney general to assign it a title, would suspend the implementation of California's landmark AB 32 legislation until the state's unemployment rate fell below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. It is being touted as, "a reasonable measure at this time." It is instead a poorly disguised attempt to derail California's progress in the area of sustainability.

The last time the California unemployment rate was below 5.5% in four consecutive quarters was from 3Q 2006 through 2Q 2007. This was part of a broader trend that actually extends back as far as the 2Q of 2005. However, in the last 20 years, California has had only two such periods (the second period lasted from 3Q 1999 to 2Q 2001). In the last twenty years, only twice has California enjoyed the type of climate that Measure 94 demands be met before AB 32 can be enacted. The average quarterly unemployment rate from 1990 through 2009 in California was 6.9% unemployment. Even when 2009 is arbitrarily tossed out the window, the average is still at 6.7%. The proposed measure requires four consecutive quarters of unusually low unemployment before allowing AB 32 to be implemented.

Measure 94 disingenuously asks voters to wait until the economy is healthy before allowing AB 32 to, "Cost California up to 1.1 million jobs" and "Devastate budgets of California social service agencies" (both quotes from the website, www.suspendab32.org). It is a thinly veiled attempt to appear reasonable while knowing that the unemployment threshold the measure sets would be near impossible to achieve in any near future. Furthermore, Measure 94, along with Meg Whitman's pledge to halt all AB 32 related initiatives, would be highly detrimental to California. If forced to wait for the "right" employment conditions, California may be waiting an impossibly long time and at sizable cost.

So said the Legislative Analyst Office's report. The non-partisan office found that delaying the implementation of AB 32 would feel good now but would have consequences down the road. Specifically, we would be trading lower energy bills in the present day, for lost ground on new energy sources and the lost multitude of green jobs that would no longer be created. The LAO report notes that Measure 94 could result in some fiscal savings for the state because the administrative costs of implementing and enforcing AB 32 would be avoided. That's true in a simple analysis. But with regard to AB 32, it is a very narrow way to examine the issue. Will AB 32 cost money? Of course. But it also transforms an economy and makes California one of the leading sub-national governments in the world on greenhouse gas reductions. Not to mention the potential revenue lost because the state would no longer be regulating carbon credits. (Yes, some of this revenue would likely be passed to the taxpayers in a rebate system, but the state will not keep their hands off it entirely)

The measure raises a question that should be answered: are there economic conditions that would justify waiting to implement AB 32? Unfortunately, the nobility of the question is completely sidetracked by the complete lack of constructive solutions proposed by the measure.

Stopping AB 32 cold would be a bad move for California and its citizens. There are legitimate differences between conservatives and liberals on what the proper role of government is in combating environmental problems. There could even be very productive discussions about amending AB 32 given the current economic climate. Measure 94 is not a solution or significant contribution to these debates. Instead, it is bad policy that takes the state backwards in its efforts instead of forward. It's not wrong to try and correct or improve existing legislation. But Measure 94 is not interested in correction or improvement. It is simply concerned with endless delay and postponement. To say it in a way both sides could agree on: it is interested in what California cannot afford to do.