PERSPECTIVES ON PROPOSITION 128 : Is It Practical and Forward-Looking, or Is It the Big Green Con Job? : The petrochemical industry is putting out ‘Big Scare’ propaganda. Here are the real facts.
As ballot initiatives play an increasingly important role in the governance of California, a concomitant but dangerous trend is also developing: use of the Big Scare. In recent years, for example, we’ve been told that certain ballot initiatives would cause a mass exodus of the insurance industry from the state (Proposition 103) and that “the death knell” would sound for California agriculture (Proposition 65).
The November ballot is no exception. Already, apocalyptic predictions are being made by the oil and chemical industry that if Proposition 128, the environmental initiative also called Big Green, is enacted: More than a million jobs will be lost; food prices will increase; coal-fired power plants will be closed; gasoline prices will soar, and California’s agriculture will (again) be shut down.
Ironically, such tactics by the business community have been uniformly unsuccessful. Perhaps that’s why about 90% of the funding opposing the initiative is coming from a single industry--petrochemicals. Other businesses covered by Proposition 128, such as electronics, automotive, aerospace and the public utilities, generally chose to sit this one out. Nonetheless, as the campaign heats up, the voters are likely to be deluged with disinformation from the petrochemical industry. Here are the facts:
Food prices: During the coming decade, Proposition 128 will phase out the use on food crops of specific pesticides that government has classified as known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. Of more than 300 pesticide chemicals registered for use on food, 20 have been so classified. These “worst actors” present a particularly serious health risk not only in the food supply, but also in drinking water and, for some, in the workplace. According to separate Cornell and University of California studies, effective alternatives exist for virtually all of these pesticides. Proposition 128 provides five to eight years to develop additional alternatives, as well as $20 million in public funds for this effort. Cornell’s David Pimentel concluded that Proposition 128 “should not cause any appreciable decrease in pest control efficiency” and “consumer prices apparently will not increase.” That’s why 128 is supported by groups truly concerned about consumers, including those founded by Ralph Nader. Job loss: Historically, industry has attempted to pit environmentalists against labor through claims that protecting our environment necessarily means economic dislocation and unemployment. But Big Green now includes organized labor, including the AFL-CIO, within its wide range of supporters. Many of Proposition 128’s provisions, such as those requiring heightened energy efficiency from utilities and auto makers and enhanced treatment of sewage and toxic waste discharged into coastal waters, will create thousands of jobs and also ensure a safer workplace.
Gasoline prices will soar: The proposition’s provisions for dealing with global warming through reduction, over the next 20 years, of gases such as carbon dioxide, have prompted predictions of sharp increases in gasoline prices and utility plant shutdowns. The thinly reasoned premise for these predictions is that only by charging more for gas can California become more fuel efficient. But the cheapest way to cut the burning of CO2-producing petrochemicals is by conservation. Japan now uses about half the energy per dollar of gross national product that the United States does, mostly by making industrial processes more efficient. The most likely means of reducing CO2will be through producing more fuel-efficient automobiles. Volvo and Toyota already have 80 m.p.g. prototypes. A just-released Natural Resources Defense Council study of 128 found that up to $87 billion would be saved in California through reduced expenditures for electricity, fuel costs and pollution-related illness and deaths.
The death of California agriculture: Ironically, during the Proposition 65 campaign, Henry Voss, then-head of the California Farm Bureau, described that anti-toxics measure as “a declaration of war on California agriculture” that could prove its “death knell.” Four years after Proposition 65 was enacted by a 2-to-1 majority of the electorate, California’s multibillion dollar agriculture industry is alive and well. Voss now directs the state Department of Food and Agriculture, the agency that oversaw the debacle in Southern California to “eradicate” the Mediterranean fruit fly by aerial spraying. Among the reforms contained in Proposition 128 is the transfer of regulatory authority over pesticides from this department to the Department of Health Services.
Proposition 128 raises serious public policy issues that deserve serious debate. It is supported by the nation’s major environmental organizations, organized labor, pediatricians, scientists, numerous elected officials and, according to public opinion polls, the vast majority of Californians. In November, California’s voters will reject the Big Scare and enact Big Green.
