California has decided to take a vote on temporarily repealing a 2006 state greenhouse-gas law, which would temporarily set back the goals of cutting gas emissions until unemployment has risen. California has long had a problem with unemployment, and the idea behind the repeal of proposition 23 is it will reduce costs for some companies, most notably in silicon valley. Executives in the Venture-Capital industry argue that Proposition 23 will curb investment in the alternative energy industry. Jim Watson, the managing general of CMEA Capital says that "if lawmakers nationwide block legislation that helps clean-tech firms,... 'we have to start thinking about moving a lot of our investment dollars to China'". This will come as a further hit to these companies since investment is already down from 1.2 billion to 452 million, while in the rest of the world venture capitalist investment in alternative energies is up.
This situation is almost a lose lose situation for California because if the state votes for Proposition 23 they may gain jobs in the short term but they will lose the long term benefits of one of the fastest growing industries in the global marketplace. The best thing for the state of California would be to vote for the short term solution if the California economy is about to collapse. In any other case the best thing for California would be to vote down proposition 23 and secure what could potentially be one of the most profitable industries, and could turn around California's tough economic recession.
~Tom Langevin
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303738504575568812369392150.html?mod=WSJ_Energy_leftHeadlines
I think this is a very interesting article because it is a mixture of multiple problems in California. They are trying to repeal a 2006 greenhouse gas law, which will then set back the goals of cutting gas emissions. This will result in a rise of unemployment, which is the goal. It is interesting how this situation is a lose-lose for California because if the state votes for Proposition 23 then there is a possibility that jobs will start increasing in the short term. "But at the same time they will lose the long term benefits of one of the fastest growing industries in the global marketplace."
ReplyDelete-Michael Sheinfeld