Opponents of Proposition 23 tout the California carbon emission law’s ability to generate green energy jobs in the future while admitting it will cost jobs in the process.
Some of California’s labor unions have joined the concern about the loss of these traditional energy sector jobs. They do not see the loss of their members’ jobs as being offset by the long term gains from the clean energy industry that may emerge. Union rep James Kellog explains:
While the new “green” industries that opponents tout might headquarter in California to take advantage of AB32′s subsidies and artificially created markets, they’ll mostly build their plants and create their manufacturing jobs in places where labor is cheaper, taxes are lower and environmental regulations more realistic.
Most Californians share the desire to leave the state a cleaner place for our children. How we reach that cleaner place is subject to debate. When assessing the potential effect of laws like AB 32, one must consider the business climate in California that green energy will operate within.
While it is easy to believe that clean energy projects will just blossom all over the state, the reality is that that they will be subject to the same environmental scrutiny that a new oil refinery would endure.
These are the top 5 “Green Tape” threats to clean energy:
5. Birds – Wind energy technology is a promising way to harvest energy from abundant wind sources.
Problem: Unfortunately, birds like to fly around the same blustery areas. Since it was discovered that about a bird an hour dies in the Altamont Pass wind farm in northern California, new wind projects must not kill birds. Instead, the financial feasibility of these projects are killed.
4. Safety Regulations – The Nissan Leaf is an all-electric car which requires 24 hours to recharge on a typical residential voltage. In order to reduce the charging period to 8 hours, owners must install a high voltage charging system which most city building codes do not allow in residential neighborhoods.
Problem: City officials around the country must now be convinced that all that high voltage around homes is not that dangerous. The bigger problem for Nissan is projecting sales for the car. As one car writer describes the gamble:
If he wins, Renault-Nissan wins huge. If he loses, Mr. Ghosn will go down in history as the biggest CEO goat since Tony Hayward
3. Wireless transmissions – The “Smart Grid” is the future in micro managing reductions in energy usage. An essential part of the grid are the smart meters which constantly transmit data to power companies.
Problem: Unfounded fears of health issues related to the devices have slowed their rollout in California. One problem region is around environmentally conscious San Francisco. 4,169 people complained about smart meters in the Bay Area versus 78 in the greater San Diego area during the same period.
2. Fragile Desert Habitats – California’s large uninhabited desert expanses are prime locations for solar farms.
Problem: Many of the best solar project sites are home to delicate ecosystems that will be impacted by the construction of solar panels. Environmental groups forced Washington lawmakers to designate only limited portions of Federal desert for solar development. The recently approved Beacon Solar project won environmentalist support because it was located on private property next to existing electrical infrastructure and will use municipal water supplies, qualities most desert solar projects do not possess.
1. NIMBYs – New infrastructure must be constructed to connect remote renewable energy sources to city users.
Problem: Many Californians are supporters of clean energy until the infrastructure is built in their backyard. The state is littered with clean energy projects stalled or killed due to objections from local residents. Some have objected to the installation of unsightly solar panels in residential neighborhoods. A related threat comes from BANANA’s (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything).
Mr. Kellog frames the issue and his union’s support of Prop 23 in closing:
We need to do something about global warming. But we don’t need to kick California workers while they’re down to do it. With more than 2.2 million Californians out of work, we can’t afford AB32′s excessive costs, at least not now.
Part of those excessive costs is green energy’s questionable ability to generate enough long-term job growth in California to cover losses.
