Why I'm Voting 'No' on Proposition 23

One of the more irritating measures on the California ballot this November is Proposition 23, an initiative that would suspend Assembly Bill 32 and the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 until the state's unemployment rate decreased to 5.5 percent or below, and remained there for a full year. 

Environmentalists like me are against Proposition 23. The governor is against it. Heck, even Meg Whitman is against it. But the most significant reason to "just say no," is that the big oil companies, such as Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp., are for it. Since their operations are in California, they likely stand to benefit from the rollback of emissions regulations here.

By the way, the "big five" oil companies reported their second-quarter profits in July, and the combined amount was $21.7 billion. So far, they are somewhere well north of $50 billion. They have tripled their profits from last year. And these are the folk referring to Proposition 23 as the "California Jobs Initiative," claiming that the environmental restrictions on business are the cause for unemployment in California. 

Imagine someone from the Lone Star State being concerned about our unemployment rate? Apparently, Texas oil is diversifying its product line and has expanded into this surefire new profit center. If you did not know that, you or your vote have probably been affected by another force—stealth manipulation of public opinion. It's a political thing.  

If public perception about you affects your company's bottom line, you change public perception. It's just another business expense. So far this year, more than $40 million has been spent on this manipulation for your vote for Proposition 23 alone. See, they really do care about you–well, your vote anyway.

I am voting "No" on Proposition 23, and I would advise you to do so as well.