I implore you to read the text of AB-32 yourselves, and more importantly, the AB 32 Scoping Plan before you reject Proposition 23. The California economy is in a very fragile condition; implementing a Cap-and-Trade program will be devastating to California businesses. According to the scoping plan:
Consistent with AB 32, ARB must adopt the cap-and-trade regulation by January 1, 2011, and the program itself must begin in 2012.An entity called the Air Resources Board will have dictatorial power over every business in the state and will be able to effectively put any business out of business. This is absolute insanity. It doesn't even do anything to reduce air pollution! Please, read it for yourself! For whatever reason, the news outlets, the movie stars are lying to the public or are to lazy to look into what they are supporting before they toss money into the ring.
California Resident since Age 1.5 and fearful for the future.
PS, Chelene Nightingale for governor - she'll stop this horrendous law - she holds the radical belief that people should come before fish.
Some Documentation For Your Perusal
|JAMES N. GOLDSTENE Executive Officer California Air Resources Board|
- TITLE 17. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATIONS DATE: November 18, 2010
In developing this regulatory proposal, ARB staff evaluated the potential economic impacts on representative private persons and businesses. The Executive Officer has initially determined that there will be a potential cost impact on private persons or businesses directly affected as a result of the proposed regulatory action. As explained in the ISOR, the proposed amendments may have a significant adverse economic impact on some individual businesses but the overall statewide impacts are not expected to be significant. (RH Comment : Say people who will not lose their jobs over these regulations)
- Health and Safety Code section 41712(b) requires that the Board adopt consumer product regulations that are “technologically feasible.” Technological feasibility is a different concept than "commercial feasibility," and does not take into account the cost of reformulating a product. We believe that a proposed limit is technologically feasible if it meets at least one of the following criteria: (1) the limit is already being met by at least one product within the same category, or (2) the limit can reasonably be expected to be met in the time frame provided through additional development efforts. RH Comment : This standard of technologically feasible will likely mean that at least some companies will go out of business because it will be too costly for them to achieve the higher technical standard. Some may say this is a good thing as they are the worst polluters, and in a booming economy, I might agree, however, we have 22% unemployment at the moment.
60 Minutes - California Has 22% Under + Unemployment
Who is Tom Steyer? Tom Steyer donated $5,000,000 to defeat Prop. 23. Out of the goodness of his heart? Dunno. But here is his company: Farallon Capital Management Company - here is one viewpoint on Tom Steyer.
Update November 13th, 2010: Poor Goldman Sachs, they thought they would make so much money off of Cap-and-Tax - But the exchange in Chicago just closed...The Crash Of The Climate Exchange - But wait! California is starting Cap-and-Tax January 1, 2011! What a co-inky-dink that is! It's not like our own Barbara Boxer was one of the ones trying to monetize the Global Warming Scam... If we had a free press in this country, they might do a bit of research into whether Goldman Sachs is going to profit from CaliCap'nTax!