When one of the most liberal states in the nation – long celebrated as an environmental forerunner – spurns two measures that aim to slow the world’s growing ecological emergency it’s easy to suggest that the pollution-filled sky is falling.
However Chicken Little should be just as ecstatic about the failure of Propositions 7 and 10 as he is about the success of Proposition 2.
Voters are not ignoring the need for smart comprehensive energy solutions; they’re rejecting the flawed short-term mindset represented by these stopgap measures.
The smog surrounding this year’s election has obscured the public’s perception of California’s two “green” propositions which many voters may have heard about for the first time on Nov. 4 – when they rejected the proposals.
To recap Proposition 7 would have required utility companies to generate 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2050 compared to the 11 percent that currently comes from wind solar and other green options.
Drawn with broad strokes by an Arizona billionaire Proposition 7 would not have counted energy produced by small utility companies toward that goal stifling growth in the industry. Newer more flexible businesses would be unable to break into a market that would quickly become monopolistic and limit the development of more innovative and efficient technologies.
For this reason and others nearly every organization in California opposed Propostion 7 including California’s Democratic Republican and Green parties in addition to most environmental business and labor groups. Every major newspaper in the state called it misguided.
It seems everyone who learned about the measure wanted to shoot it down but the relatively close vote reflects limited knowledge of propositions that don’t affect the definition of marriage – a Field Poll showed 35 percent had not heard of Proposition 7 by late October.
Proposition 10 amply funded by oilman T. Boone Pickens proved more popular. But it too was a wrongheaded move.
The measure proposed funds for a variety of noble-sounding endeavors such as alternative energy demonstrations and various incentives for clean energy technology but $2.875 billion of the $5 billion bond goes toward rebates for alternative energy vehicles.
It is vital to develop the technology and the market for vehicles that run with limited or no gasoline a pollutant that will eventually run out and which increases the United States’ dependence on volatile hostile regions of the world.
Hybrids although not a perfect solution are an example of a car that should be more widely sold. Proposition 10 would have given a $2000 rebate to the first 55000 Hybrid purchasers – a good start. Meanwhile$10 000 of taxpayer money would have been wasted on rebates to everyone who bought a car powered by natural gas electricity or hydrogen.
Conveniently for Pickens and tragically for the state there is currently no supply of new electric or hydrogen cars – but Pickens owns a natural gas company that stands to profit handsomely.
While natural gas vehicles generally run cleaner than conventional vehicles this measure requires they be only “as clean” as gas-powered vehicles. Natural gas still contributes to global warming and is another finite fuel source.
For the record current electric and hydrogen technology also requires extensive work.
Cars designed to earn Proposition 10 rebates today will be made obsolete within a decade or two replaced by truly clean-air vehicles but residents’ tax dollars would have continued to fund the bonds for this deceptive proposal.
Propositions 7 and 10 both look good at first glance but their effects would have ultimately discouraged long-range improvement that might genuinely improve the environment.
The state is striving to improve air quality and lessen dependence on foreign oil. For instance a 2002 law would require steady improvements in pollution limits on cars and force the market to adopt realistic solutions. Unfortunately the law requires a waiver by the Environmental Protection Agency which the Bush administration has failed to grant as it instead uses the agency to take wolves off the endangered species list allow power plants next to national parks and loosen regulations on destructive mining and farming practices.
These are the issues that should and do concern many Californians.
Voters did not turn their backs on the justifiably acclaimed though imperfect environmental record of their state. They showed instead a willingness to examine the truth behind environmental claims and oppose half-measures that hurt the cause’s and the planet’s overall health.
The sky is not falling – it’s clearing.