Article Directory :: Business - General Articles

California Climate Action Opposed by Big Oil

By Daniel Stouffer

Republish: EasyPublish™ Published: 26Jun2010 Word count: 522 Viewed: 303 time(s) Get Free Content For Your Site

AB 42 was introduced in 2006 by the California legislature as a way of seeking to control emissions throughout the state within a "cap and trade" scheme. Since its inception, the legislation has attracted considerable opposition, yet has survived challenges meant to water down or even suspend its effects. As the all-important November ballots approach, it seems that it will face a significant challenge, with a possible voter referendum ahead.

California climate action proponents are against a clause within the state's November ballot asking voters whether or not AB 42 should be suspended. Supporters of the suspension suggest that the State's unemployment rate is far too high and will be aggravated should the legislation effectively add to the price of state energy.

AB 42 was introduced in 2006 by the California legislature as a way of seeking to control emissions throughout the state within a "cap and trade" scheme. Since its inception, the legislation has attracted considerable opposition, yet has survived challenges meant to water down or even suspend its effects. As the all-important November ballots approach, it seems that it will face a significant challenge, with a possible voter referendum ahead.

A group supported by the oil industry has managed to raise more than 800,000 signatures, calling for the suspension of the Global Warming Solutions Act. This is well past the threshold requirement for inclusion on the ballot in November and it now seems that this question will, indeed, be asked.

The cap and trade system is due to start in 2012 and AB 42 is the State's answer to the principles of the Kyoto protocol. California climate action is calling for greenhouse gas emissions levels to be reduced to those prevalent in 1990 by the time we get to 2020. The California Air Resources Board is charged with the responsibility of its implementation.

It is interesting to see that several significant oil companies and industry groups have invested considerable sums of money to help gather the 800,000 signatures calling for suspension of AB 42. The powerful lobbying group clearly sees a threat to their interests and is not swayed by the argument that this California climate action legislation could offset costs by creating "clean" jobs instead.

It is certain that California climate action supporters have been hit by the effects of the recession. Indeed, these effects have had potentially far-reaching consequences for climate legislation on the federal level as well. Whether a carbon tax or a trading program is the instrument suggested, opponents point to the fact that we will inevitably see an increase in the cost of energy and this could be problematic as we try and emerge from economic downfall.

Gov. Schwarzenegger appears ready to back the suspension of California climate action legislation that he signed into law in 2006. Should the item appear on the ballot and be voted down, climate action proponents could suffer a fairly significant setback.

If AB 42 is defeated in the November ballot, a revised version is likely to be proposed soon thereafter. As the economic landscape changes and more pressure is exerted by some international bodies, there will be inevitable further pressure on individual organizations to become sustainable and to cut back on energy use.

EasyPublish™ this article - publishers click here

More articles by Daniel Stouffer

Free Report!
Ten Essential Secrets Of Article Marketing ... Grab Your Free
Copy Now:

Need Content?
Regular Top Quality Content for your Blog, Ezine or Website ...
Delivered Direct,
For Free!
Click For Details