California’s Landmark Greenhouse Gas Law Comes Under Attack

In 2006, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill 32, the first state global warming legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors of the economy. The law calls for capping greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 and reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Supporters say AB 32 will help slow climate change while creating jobs, improving the health of California residents and creating local energy sources that keep energy money from leaving the state. A recent Union of Concerned Scientists study showed that the cost for small businesses of AB 32, which has not yet been implemented, would be negligible.

Tom Bowman, president of Bowman design group, also wanted to find out about the costs of AB 32, so he set out for his company to meet or exceed the law’s emissions reductions goals. As a result, the group cut its emissions by 65% and saved close to $9,000 a year in costs, with all capital investments in efficiency and technology being re-paid within 15 months.

“We proved the business case for a small business,” says Bowman. “It’s easy to beat those standards and save money at the same time, which is not the message you’re hearing in the political rhetoric.”

In fact, that rhetoric is making quite contrary claims.

Although California is the leading state in clean energy jobs and investment — its green jobs sector growth was 2.5 times faster than overall economic growth — opponents say the law is too expensive and will cost the state jobs. Particularly at a time when California is facing over 12% unemployment and budget deficits, they want to slow down implementation.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has already promised to suspend AB 32 if elected, creating public strife with fellow Republican Schwarzenegger, who has been unequivocal in his support for the climate law.

Some of the law's opponents are also trying to gather signatures for an initiative on the November ballot that would suspend implementation of AB 32 until the state’s unemployment level is below 5.5% for a year.

“It’s a deceptive initiative,” says Steve Maviglio of Forza Communications, who has been hired by Californians for Clean Energy Jobs, a coalition of environmental groups and businesses, to speak on behalf of AB 32. “Only three times in the last 30 years has the state had 5.5% unemployment for 4 consecutive quarters.”

Maviglio believes the initiative to suspend AB 32 would deter billions of dollars of investment in clean energy in the state and be harmful for businesses that have to comply by creating uncertainty as to whether or not the law would go into affect.

“There’s one agenda here and it’s to kill our attempt to have a clean energy economy for California,” he said.

The ballot initiative to suspend AB 32 is being strongly supported by Congressman Tom McClintock and freshman Assembly member Dan Logue.

Logue’s attempt to repeal AB 32 through the legislative process was soundly defeated in January. Maviglio calls both Logue and McClintock “extremist tea party” politicians. Anti-AB 32 sentiment and praise for Logue and McClintock is found on a number of self-proclaimed California “tea party” blogs and web sites.

The two are joined by anti-tax activist Ted Costa, who has also tried to move ballot initiatives on redistricting and making the California legislature part time. Last week, KFI-AM Los Angeles talk radio shock-jocks John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou referred to AB 32 as "the global-warming final solution act" claiming it was being promoted by "fascist, Nazi" officials. The Suspend AB 32 web site ominously warns those outside California to “stop it here before it reaches you.”

What's in a Name?

Already, though, AB 32 opponents are being pushed back.