Graphic by Jennifer Fong, with Creative Commons images by Flickr users pinksherbet, revger, and pagedooley

My two cents: On the surface, Prop 23 makes itself out to be the savior of the Californian people, promising job opportunities and a hefty boost in state and local revenues.  But the only commendable thing about Prop 23 is the sneakiness of its proponents: there's virtually no way California could sustain a low enough unemployment rate to reinstate environmental protections once they're shelved, and Prop 23 supporters know it.

Prop 23 would suspend California’s law regulating greenhouse gas emissions, Assembly Bill 32, until state unemployment rates drop to 5.5 percent or lower for four consecutive quarters.  AB 32 aims to slash state emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 by requiring that emissions sources report and reduce their greenhouse gas outputs.  However, the last time California’s unemployment rate dipped below 5.5% was in October 2007—and that lasted a grand total of two months.  California has been able to sustain an unemployment rate under 5.5 percent for more than four consecutive quarters over only two brief periods in the last decade - and barely so.  Not only has the unemployment rate more than doubled to 13.2% since then, but the instability of unemployment rates will conveniently allow Prop 23 to suspend environmental measures at will.

Another fun fact?  Prop 23’s two biggest funders are the Texas-based Valero and Tesoro oil companies.  Their oil refineries routinely rank among the country’s greatest polluters, and Prop 23 would see to it that they keep doing so - at the expense of Californians’ health.

AB 32 may appear to be a costly initiative, but a recent economic study actually suggests that AB 32 will save up to $9.6 billion in energy costs in the event of a “large oil price shock.”  The U.S. economy has suffered shocks at least five times in 30 years, including a particularly traumatic one that saw the prices of oil and natural gas jump 179% in one year.

Sky-high unemployment rates have been plaguing the entire country since 2008.  It’s unlikely that suspending AB 32 and other associated measures will single-handedly reverse the trend.  Will Prop 23 boost state revenues for the time being?  Probably—but these revenues will come at the expense of public health, which could harm the quality and quantity of our work force in the long-run.

Governor hopefuls Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown have both publically stated that they intend to vote against the proposition, opting to use alternate measures to combat unemployment.  Unemployment rates will rise and fall, but our physical and environmental health can’t be bought back.

Reach reporter Jennifer Fong here.