Ken Silverstein | Nov 10, 2010

The national electorate has spoken. So, too, have the people of California. They overwhelmingly rejected the efforts to sideline the state's global warming law in which critical new details are to be unveiled soon.

Nationally the message is one of reduced spending and limited government. But Californians are saying that such concerns do not contradict those of a healthier environment. In fact, the efforts led by two Texas-based oil companies to postpone greenhouse gas reductions there is turning out to be a colossal PR blunder and one that the greenies are trying to turn into a national mandate for environmental change.

"Millions of voters said they see clean energy jobs as the path forward through a tough economic climate," says Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. "That sends a strong message far beyond California. Voters asked their leaders to chart a future toward clean energy, less pollution, and less dependence on imported oil. Congress should pay attention."

Voters in California turned down by a margin of 61 percent to 39 percent the attempt to delay deep cuts in greenhouse emissions until the economy there improves. The state legislature had implemented a law in 2007 requiring utilities to quantify their greenhouse gas emissions. By 2011, the California Air Resources Board is to write the rules for industry to live by: By 2020, greenhouse gases would be cut by about 25 percent. By 2050, the state's goal is to cut such releases by 80 percent.

But Valero Energy Corp and Tesoro Corp. initiated a ballot proposal that would have effectively killed the bill. They suggested that law be delayed until the state can get its unemployment levels down from 12 percent today to 5.5 percent.

To be fair, the businesses that must comply with the law do not want to be singled out and they want the rules to be feasible and cost effective. Any added costs, they say, would ultimately be passed through to consumers. The state's resource board is now in the midst of choosing between a cap-and-trade system in which businesses can buy and sell credits among themselves to stay within the limits or a tax on all carbon emissions.

Valid Concerns

The concerns raised concerning the state's global warming laws are valid. But they are glossing over the fact that California already has 500,000 people working in the clean technology sector, says the state's Employment Development Department. The bustling green technology sector, in fact, has been sprouting jobs during this economic downturn and all because of favorable environmental laws on the books.

Furthermore, if the law is delayed until the unemployment rates drops below 5.5 percent, they will be waiting a long time. It's only fallen to such levels a few times in three decades in that state.

Elections, of course, give voice to the people. And proponents of the current law say that the electorate has spoken. At the same time, they are citing statistics that the global clean technology market is now worth $10 billion and that is expected to grow to be $80 billion in 2020. The state and its entrepreneurs are positioning themselves for a piece of that.

It's clear now that the effort by the oil companies has backfired. According to Maplight.org, those who wanted to toss out the global warming law spent nearly $11 million while those wanting to keep it exhausted more than $31 million, which consisted of a consortium of varied interests.

"Voters heard from a wide range of voices they can trust about Prop 23: public health groups, environmental and community leaders, organized labor groups, business leaders from large and small businesses alike," says Cathy Calfo, executive director of the Apollo Alliance. "Bipartisanship-a rare commodity these days, but a powerful and effective force- trumped a polarizing attack."

Indeed, that's the message that California voters want to send to the rest of the country - that the clean tech sector is filled with future promise: It is not only able to create modern economic segments with fresh jobs but it is also able to improve the quality of life. To that end, going green need not be a divisive venue; rather, it can symbolize the new level of cooperation that both sides of the aisle say they now seek.

EnergyBiz Insider is nominated for Best Online Column by Media Industry News, MIN.

So what do you think? Please share your thoughts by posting a quick comment below, or by sending a longer reply to energybizinsider@energycentral.com.