That answers that question.

What was expected by many pollsters to be a very close vote on a ballot initiative in California to delay the state's looming changes to reduce carbon emissions turned into a route, with No votes grabbing 61% of the total.

As described in more detail in the original story below , Proposition 23 would have delayed implementation of a series of steps designed to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions in the state until California's unemployment rate went below 5.5%.

The initiaitve turned into a big money brawl, with opponents spending some $31 million to defeat the measure, versus $11 for proponents, most coming from oil companies.

“We are beating Texas again,” said the outgoing governor, Arnold Schwartzeneger, referencing the growing economic battle between California and the Lonestar state, as well as the recent World Series triumph of the San Francisco Giants over the Texas Rangers.

Emilie Mazzacurati, head of carbon research for consultant Point Carbon, said the defeat of Proposition 23 carries “symbol importance” ahead of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Cancun, Mexico starting in late November.

How the now unchanged law and regulations will impact companies operating in California and thus by default likely elsehwere in the country is unclear. We will dig into this more on TheGreenSupplyChain.com very soon.

Original Story:

Vote in California Next will Play Pivotal Role in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Future

Unrecognized by many, the US already does have a carbon emissions legislation, in the form of a law in the state of California passed in 2006 that commits to the state reducing greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020.

Next week, California voters will decide whether to make a change in that law by delaying the plan unless the state's unemployment rate falls below 5.5%. Right now, the state’s unemployment rate is 12.4 percent, the third highest in the nation.

The ballot measure is called Proposition 23, and as usual in California state issues, it is the subject of intense political activity on both sides. Most polls have shown a strong lead for those against the bill  (meaning the employment-based delay would not be written into law), but a recent poll by the Los Angeles Times and the University of Southern California showed the Yes voters favoring passage of Proposition 23 by a margin of 40% to 38%. The wild card - almost 25% of voters were still undecided.

Big money has been flowing on both sides, with much of it favoring passage coming from oil companies and refineries.  Opponents of the initiative have been using that fact in their advertising campaigns, also well-funded by environmental groups and a $5 million campaign contribution from billionaire investment manager Tom Steyer. In fact, "No" proponents have raised as much as three times more money and the Yes forces, including a $1 million donation by Hollywood director James Cameron, and $700,000 from Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

In 2006, California voters failed to approve Proposition 87, which would have created a $4 billion program to cut petroleum consumption by 25%,  funded by a tax of up to 6% on oil producers in the state.

But that same year, the California legislature passed the Global Warming Solutions Act, which ultimately committed California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state some 30% from what it was estimated those emissions would have been by 2010, meaning a 15% reduction from actual 2006 levels.

To get there would involve a series of steps detailed in what became a "scoping plan" document for the law. Those steps include: 

• Setting specific target for allowable GHG emissions in the state
• Additional regulations regarding automobile fuel efficiency and emissions
• Development of a cap and trade program within the state and linking to a Western regional system
• Fees on water use and greenhouse gas emissions

• Requirements that as much as one-third of the state's electricity become generated by renewable sources

Forces opposed to the bill have said that the scoping plan will cost California 1.1 million jobs and cost the state's citizens and businesses $3.7 billion a year in higher energy costs.

On the other side, Joe Romm, a well-known climate expert and blogger, considers the Global Warming Solutions Act to be "one of the most progressive pieces of environmental legislation ever enacted."

According to Romm, in addition to reducing pollution levels and dependence on foreign oil, the law is spurring market growth in California’s clean tech and clean energy industries. He claims that the law has already stimulated more than $9 billion of private investment, helped pave the way for more than 12,000 companies, and has contributed to the creation of more than 100,000 green jobs.

On Nov. 2, California voters will weigh in. If the law survives the move to postpone its implementation, it could serve as a model for similar legislation in other states, moving the global warming agenda ahead even if there is little or no action in Washington.

Do you even know California had an existing law that will significantly impact businesses operating in the state if Proposition 23 fails? Do you think the law as it stands will hurt or help the state's economy? Let us know your thoughts at the Feedback button below.

TheGreenSupplyChain.com is now Twittering! Follow us at www.twitter.com/greenscm