The Nation is Watching on 23

Anonymous's picture

Good to see lots of coverage in the national media of the upcoming Prop 23 ballot. The result will effect the environmental path of California for years to come. If it goes through it will suspend AB 32 (progressive environmental policy) almost indefinitely. Supporters of 23 claim that it will only be suspended until unemployment is below 5.5% and remains so for a year. As anyone who knows California's unemployment patterns, this means indefinitely. While proponents claim 23 will stimulate the economy and create jobs, they ignore the fact that the green energy sector is the fastest growing in the state and is quickly becoming a major provider of jobs. If 23 goes through, this industry will be negatively effected. This isn't about creating jobs for Californians. It's about protecting the interests of big oil.

It looks to be a close battle so if you care about California as the state which sets the standard on progressive environmental policy, vote no on 23. 

Phil Ting's picture

No on 23

Yes.  Given the stakes with many of the ballot propositions, it is amazing how little press coverage there has been on them.  Prop 23 keep us dependent on fossil fuels and keeps us from being the industry leader in the green economy.  If Prop 23 passes, I'm sure CA will no longer lead the nation in the green industry.

According to the SF Chron, CA leads in green tech, but that would end the second we pass Prop 23.

DonRoss's picture

People vs. Environment

Many people that support curbing strong environmental legislation and safeguards always use the "jobs versus the environment" argument, but with our country's infrastructure crumbling and the environment being destroyed, there is certainly a way to support both.

Van Jones argues in his Green Collar Economy that the wave of the future, and one of the best ways to reduce our carbon footprint, is to create green collar jobs. Some of the easiest jobs to create are ones retrofitting existing homes, making them more energy efficient. People's homes are some of the biggest polluters of the environment - appliances, leaky windows, water heaters etc are just as bad if not worse than the car you drive.

With strong environmental legislation we can mandate that jobs like greening our streets and retrofitting homes are created.

Prop 23 would also gut the burgeoning green tech industry, which California is a part of.

It is time to take a step forward, not backwards.

Phil Ting's picture

Environment and Jobs

Don - you are totally right on the money.  San Francisco and California can lead the way in green collar jobs.  Go Solar SF has already created 40 green collar jobs.  Imagine if we really invested in wind and tide energy, energy efficiency and recycling.  The Texas oil industry is afraid we are on to something.  They wouldn't do this is they didn't feel threatened so we must be doing something right.  If we can create a new industry which will reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, we are on to something.

Bernadette's picture

Prop 23 is a vicious cycle

Not only will Prop 23 hurt environmental legislation, but it will also help the oil companies while hurting our young green collar jobs industry, as Phil mentioned.  In an article in Mother Jones (, it says that many of the supporters of Prop 23 are oil companies based out-of-state.  While Prop 23 prevents the growth of our green industry, it also does not impede (in fact, might even help the flourishing of) the ever-growing profits those oil companies make, which in turn gives the oil companies even more money to lobby and support other future legislation that could continue to hurt the green industry!

SophieT's picture

Bazaar citing in SF

On my way home from Food for Thought this morning I had a bazaar citing in SF: a YES on 23 sign in someone's window. Still up. I have never seen one before. Guess we have one lonely, bummed out San Franciscan. Maybe the only one

Paid for by Phil Ting for Assembly 2012. FPPC ID# 1343137