The Preposition 23 states that the implementation of Air Pollution Control Law (according to Global Warming Solutions Act), will be suspended, until the employment level in California decrease to 5.5 %. In addition, the Proposition 23 suspends the program on greenhouse gas emission reduction that involves cleaner fuel requirements and augmented renewable energy.
It also suspends reporting on mandatory emotions for such emission sources as oil refines and power plants (League of Women Voters of California Education Fund, n. p.). During the period of suspension, the state organizations will not allowed to adopt and propose new regulations and enforce previously accepted regulations. The proposition 23 received a mixed feedback from the voters.
We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!
On the one hand, it was approved by the California Air Resources Board that considered it more realistic to suspend the implementation of this law due to the existing $ billion deficit leading to the rise of unemployment rates and to destruction of the economy and society (Official Voter Information Guide, n. d.).
On the other hand, the proposition was highly criticized because it could impose adverse effects on the situation with air pollution in California. Moreover, the voters believe that “…Texas oil companies are spending millions on a deceptive campaign to promote Prop. 23 because 23 would allow them and other polluters to escape accountability and increase their profits” (Official Voter Information Guide, n.
d). A thorough analysis of the situation reveals that the Proposition 23 can save workplaces and, at the same time preserves clean water and air in California; it should also prevent from destruction of economies. Nevertheless, the measure can be also evaluated as the oil companies’ attempt to promote their businesses and to reduce export of foreign oils (Pros and Cons. Suspension of AB 32 Air Pollution Control Law). Despite the fact that there is equal amount of arguments in favor and against, the majorities of voters did not support the Proposition because they are more concerned with climate change issues. In particular they believe that air pollution and natural disaster refer to much more serious problems (Forum with Michael Krasny n.
p.). However, there were voters that explained their approval by their concerns with the economic situation in California that had considerably aggravated within the period of 40 years. Therefore, the problem is difficult to resort. Two-polar views are presented in Walter’s article called Airing Out Prop 23 where he presents a neutral position on the case (Walter 1).
In my humble opinion, the Preposition 23 has both positive and negative outcomes for the members of our society. Such mixed attitudes to the issue are predetermined by setting different priorities. In particular, some people believe that the suspension of Air Pollution Control Act will have an adverse effect on the ecological environment in California and will impose inevitable losses. However, there are people whose are more economically predetermined believing that a short suspension will improve the economic situation. I believe that suspension will not beneficial for either of the supporters because the unemployment rate can be decreased by other, more efficient methods.
In addition, there should be other methods and programs on providing clean air and waters in California that would not require significant funding. Otherwise, the secretary of state will turn out to be in a tight corner.
Forum with Michael Krasny.
Preposition 23. KQED Radio. 2010. Web. 13 November 2010. http://www.
kqed.org/a/forum/R201009130900 League of Women Voter of California Education Fund. Preposition 23. Smart Voter. 2010. Web. 13 Nov.
2010. http://www.smartvoter.org/2010/11/02/ca/state/prop/23/ Official Voter Information Guide.
Prop 23 Suspends Implementation Of Air Pollution Control Law (Ab 32) Requiring Major Sources Of Emissions To Report And Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming, Until Unemployment Drops To 5.5 Percent Or Less For Full Year. Initiative Statute.
California Statewide General Election. 2010. Web. 13 Nov.
ca.gov/propositions/23/arguments-rebuttals.htm Pros and Cons. Suspension of AB 32 Air Pollution Control Law.
League of Women Voters of California. 2010. Web. Nov. 23.
2010. http://cavotes.org/vote/election/2010/november/2/ballot-measure/suspension-ab-32-air-pollution-law Walters, Hedi. Airing Out Prop 23. North Coast Journal.
2010. Web. 13 Nov. 2010.