Prop. 23 Opponents Spread ‘Repeal’ Falsehood

If enacted, Proposition 23 will suspend California’s global warming law until unemployment falls below 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. When that takes place, Prop. 23 goes back into effect. Backers say their intent is to ensure that California’s horrendous economy, with an unemployment rate above 12 percent and possibly double that in reality, isn’t further crippled.

That’s straightforward enough, and people can honestly agree or disagree on the measure’s worthiness. However, opponents of Prop. 23 have inaccurately claimed Prop. 23 would repeal AB 32, the global warming law. Here’s the first graf of a press release from Cleantech San Diego that I quoted in my previous post on the subject.

SAN DIEGO (September 17, 2010) – San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders announced today that he opposes Proposition 23, the November ballot initiative that seeks to repeal AB 32, California’s landmark legislation passed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Huffington Post, never known for its concern for accuracy, ran a story with the headline, “Proposition 23: Texas Oil Giants Invest Heavily To Repeal California Global Warming Act ”

Its second graf contradicts the inaccurate headline:

The proposition would suspend California’s Assembly Ballot 32 (AB 32), otherwise known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, which was signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger in 2006. AB 32 requires greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.

The global warming true believer site Climate Progress ran a hit piece headlined: “Politician behind the campaign to repeal California’s clean energy laws calls global warming ‘a scam’ “.

Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jerry Brown spread the lie in a bogus summary of the initiative (which he of course opposes) that the courts struck down as blatantly biased:

Judge Timothy Frawley agreed with backers that parts of the original language were misleading and would prejudice voters. The new language changes the description of the law’s intended target from “major polluters,” a term Frawley criticized as having “an obvious negative connotation,” to “major sources of emissions.”

Frawley also ordered removed a reference that Proposition 23 would cause the state to “abandon” its law to control greenhouse gases. The new language will say the initiative would “suspend” the law.

Since the initiative’s language says “temporarily suspend,” not repeal, opponents have no excuse for spreading this falsehood. They try to justify it with a factual contortion that actually undermines their case.

Valero and Tesoro claim Prop. 23 would only “suspend” AB 32’s air pollution and health regulations until California’s economy gets better. In fact, Prop. 23 – The Dirty Energy Proposition would kill new jobs and investment.

The fine print in Prop. 23 reveals their plan is to kill the clean air standards by prohibiting them from being enforced unless the state’s unemployment rate drops to a fixed level that has rarely ever been achieved.

The claim that unemployment “rarely” drops to a fixed level below 5.5 percent is empirically false. Here’s the info from the California Employment Development Department.

Since 2000, California’s adjusted annual unemployment rate has fallen below 5.5 percent 5 times out of 10, a period including parts of two booms and two recessions. That indicates the goal of dropping unemployment below that level for four consecutive quarters (which could include parts of two years) isn’t at all unrealistic.

Here are the annual state unemployment rate numbers from the California Employment Development Department:
2009 11.4
2008 7.2
2007 5.3
2006 4.9
2005 5.4
2004 6.2
2003 6.8
2002 6.7
2001 5.4
2000 4.9

The last time unemployment dropped below 5.5. percent for four consecutive quarters was in the 2006-2007 period. Again, these are from the state Employment Development Department:

2006 Jan California Adj Not Prelim 5.0
2006 Feb California Adj Not Prelim 5.0
2006 Mar California Adj Not Prelim 4.9
2006 Apr California Adj Not Prelim 4.9
2006 May California Adj Not Prelim 4.9
2006 Jul California Adj Not Prelim 4.9
2006 Aug California Adj Not Prelim 4.9
2006 Sep California Adj Not Prelim 4.8
2006 Oct California Adj Not Prelim 4.8
2006 Nov California Adj Not Prelim 4.8
2006 Dec California Adj Not Prelim 4.8
2007 Jan California Adj Not Prelim 4.9
2007 Feb California Adj Not Prelim 5.0
2007 Mar California Adj Not Prelim 5.0
2007 Apr California Adj Not Prelim 5.1
2007 May California Adj Not Prelim 5.2
2007 Jun California Adj Not Prelim 5.3

The unemployment rate began its extended run below 5.5 percent beginning in May, 2005, meaning the threshold set by Prop. 23 was met for 26 months.

And before that, the threshold was met in calendar year 2000 and seven months of 2001, or 19 months:

2000 Jan California Adj Not Prelim 5.0
2000 Feb California Adj Not Prelim 5.0
2000 Mar California Adj Not Prelim 5.1
2000 Apr California Adj Not Prelim 5.0
2000 May California Adj Not Prelim 5.1
2000 Jun California Adj Not Prelim 5.0
2000 Jul California Adj Not Prelim 5.0
2000 Aug California Adj Not Prelim 4.9
2000 Sep California Adj Not Prelim 4.8
2000 Oct California Adj Not Prelim 4.8
2000 Nov California Adj Not Prelim 4.8
2000 Dec California Adj Not Prelim 4.8
2001 Jan California Adj Not Prelim 4.7
2001 Feb California Adj Not Prelim 4.7
2001 Mar California Adj Not Prelim 4.9
2001 Apr California Adj Not Prelim 5.0
2001 May California Adj Not Prelim 5.1
2001 Jun California Adj Not Prelim 5.3
2001 Jul California Adj Not Prelim 5.4

That means a total of 45 months out of 120 months during the last 10 years, or more than 1/3 of the total, was below the 5.5 percent level specified in the initiative. These 45 months were split into two consecutive segments, the most recent ending less than 4 years ago. There are also other periods that meet the criteria in the 1990s and 1980s.

This is a conservative reading of the numbers. I don’t include non-consecutive months where the unemployment rate dropped below 5.5 percent.

So the claim that based on historical data, Prop. 23 ‘s mandate would effectively “kill” the global warming law is empirically false. If opponents care about accuracy, they’ll stop reciting this false statement.

(This is my opinion, and not necessarily that of my employer, the North County Times).