Prop 23: Voters must not leave state's economy to chancePosted by Jack Stewart, President on Sept. 24, 2010
Prop 23 = temporarily postponing AB 32 until economy improves
Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman agrees that AB 32 will be a job killer and hopes that as Governor she would be able to delay it until it can be fixed. But to make sure AB 32 is delayed, voters must support Prop 23. We can't leave this to chance.
California's economy already looks like this:
California was a clean tech leader before AB 32, and suspension won't change that:
Hoping that our leaders will take action to fix AB 32 is not enough given our declining manufacturing base and high unemployment rate, notwithstanding our existing greenhouse gas efficiency leadership. CMTA supports Prop 23 as the only sure way to temporarily postpone the high costs of AB 32 until the economy improves.
Voters must choose California's economy and support Prop 23 in November.
2 comments | Post your comment
8 reasons to leverage California's venture capital with a competitive environmentPosted by Gino DiCaro, Vice President, Communications on July 22, 2010
California receives a majority of U.S. venture capital (VC). Always has, hopefully always will. Our state produces brilliant creative minds and ideas because of its University power and its sheer size of 35 million people. This unique outcome alone does not however equate, by default, to the meaningful job growth necessary for our many workers whom are unemployed and under-employed (a term becoming all too common for the folks forced to take any job they can find).
We must leverage our built-in VC advantage to ensure that emerging green and other products are actually produced here. California's wealth will be multiplied once VC cash gets beyond the investment board room offices and into the bank accounts of our very own hard working, middle class families.
Recently the LA Times wrote a piece about VC growth in California and the notion that it does, and will, open the floodgates to new green jobs. Often the state's VC numbers are used to support bold California-only mandates and policies, without regard for the state's competitive disadvantage. Now the impressive amount of VC investment is being used to justify opposition to Proposition 23 -- the ballot initiative to suspend AB 32 until our economy is in better shape and unemployment numbers are reduced.
I offer eight recent independent examples and statistics that refute the notion that VC and seminal green projects automatically produce the type of job growth this state needs for its economic recovery.
VC might have translated into regional job growth in times long past, but now the world is too mobile, too competitive, too global. California must find a way to compete so we can leverage our VC dollars, creative minds and ideas into broad wealth for all working families.
0 comments | Post your comment
A common global warming conversation leading up to California's November electionPosted by Gino DiCaro, Vice President, Communications on July 14, 2010
I received the following e-mail from a cousin and one of my closest friends last night regarding AB 32 as he ponders his position on November's Proposition 23 to suspend California's global warming law. He was kind enough to let me use our communication as a potential window into a few of the living room "carbon" discussions that will occur in our state in the coming months.
For demographic purposes, he is a 33 year old married business owner living in Long Beach. Socially he is a smart, influential, politically independent, community-focused individual. Overall a well-rounded person who is a good snapshot of a percentage of our voting public for whom the Proposition 23 campaign needs to make a solid case.
Here are his questions (in quotes and non-bold) and my overall responses (in bold):
"If possible, I’d like a quick take from you on this bill, AB32. I see similarities between this bill and what happened back in the early 80’s with the auto industry when we didn’t demand improved MPG. I think we would be in a far better position today had we pushed for better MPG over the years. I would guess there would be less demand for oil, less pollution, not having to bailout car companies, etc."
"Restricting emissions will require us to become more innovative with clean energy and a world leader for clean energy corporations. And as someone who lives and breathes next to two of the largest ports in the world, I am very interested in seeing that take place."
"I completely understand the argument regarding how unfriendly our state is towards business (there are so many taxes that are so lame it’s hard to believe). However, I want to know if you would support this bill in a vacuum. Or better yet, would you support it if you were in the friendliest state to do business (Delaware)?"
1 comments | Post your comment