On November 2, Californians will have an unprecedented opportunity to vote on a ballot measure that will protect jobs and their quality of life.
Proposition 23 would suspend implementation of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, until the state’s unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or lower for four consecutive quarters. AB 32 requires that greenhouse gas emission levels in the state be cut to 1990 levels by 2020.
In March of this year, California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office agreed AB 32 is a jobs-killer: “The aggregate net jobs impact [of AB 32] is likely to be negative.”
And earlier this month the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute issued an analysis of the job-saving impaction of Prop 23. Economist Ben Zycher concluded, “The central finding of this study is that [passage of Prop 23 and] suspension of AB 32 would yield increases in aggregate California employment, relative to the case with implementation of AB 32, of a bit less than 150,000 in 2011, rising to more than a half million in 2012, and about 1.3 million in 2020.”
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.
About California’s Prop 23
Pacific Research Institute
On November 2, Californians will have an unprecedented opportunity to vote on a ballot measure that will protect jobs and their quality of life.
Proposition 23 would suspend implementation of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, until the state’s unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or lower for four consecutive quarters. AB 32 requires that greenhouse gas emission levels in the state be cut to 1990 levels by 2020.
In March of this year, California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office agreed AB 32 is a jobs-killer: “The aggregate net jobs impact [of AB 32] is likely to be negative.”
And earlier this month the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute issued an analysis of the job-saving impaction of Prop 23. Economist Ben Zycher concluded, “The central finding of this study is that [passage of Prop 23 and] suspension of AB 32 would yield increases in aggregate California employment, relative to the case with implementation of AB 32, of a bit less than 150,000 in 2011, rising to more than a half million in 2012, and about 1.3 million in 2020.”
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.