What's Up, California?
In Tuesday's election, California voters voted to support farm animals by approving Proposition 2, which is aimed at ending cruel and inhumane treatment to farm animals. This measure will provide farm animals - chickens, calves and pigs, for example - with more space in their cages. Many animals never learn to walk before they're taken to slaughter because they don't have room to move in their pens. Animals can't turn around and have no semblance of a normal, healthy life. Hopefully this measure will change that.
And though voters are in support of farm animals, they defeated two interesting environmental propositions on the ballot. The first, Proposition 7, was to require utilities to generate 20% of power from renewable energy sources by 2010, 40% by 2020 and 50% from renewable energy sources by 2025. 65% of voters were against this idea.
The second, Proposition 10, was a $5 billion bond program to assist people with the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles and for research of alternative fuel technology. 60% of voters voted against this.
I don't live in California, but the results surprised me. California has done a great job in leading the nation in environmental progress and in setting an example for the country to follow or, at the very least, aspire to. What do you think about these ballot initiatives? Too far ahead of our time? Do we need to focus on other priorities right now?
Comments
Anonymous
Tue, 11/18/2008 - 14:08
Permalink
I live in CA, and may be
I live in CA, and may be able to shed some light on the subject.
As for Prop 2, who was going to vote to "keep animals in cruel environs"? That passed of course. However, it is feared that less than scrupulous grocers will simply source more chicken, pork, etc from Mexico, where Prop 2 has no effect, whereby putting California mean producers at a disadvantage. However, many Californians are responsible, if not educated consumers when it comes to food, so there is a chance at least that people will choose the more expensive, but cruelty free, California produced meat products.
With respect to Prop 7, the devil was in the details. Why a lot of people that are champions of clean energy opposed the bill, was because it created a new loop-hole for non-compliance that currently does not exist. Under current law, energy utilities in California are required to get 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2010; and here is the gotcha - with no provision for a waiver for non-compliance. So the big energy companies sponsored Prop 7 to look good - e.g. require higher percentages of renewable sources, but also allows for a waiver if they don't comply!
And finally, for Prop 10, it is a simple matter of "no more spending". California is running a multi-Billion dollar deficit, and cannot seem to balance a budget no matter how hard everyone says they are trying to. With the national spotlight on abuses of spending in Washington D.C., and with our budget crisis in California, the electorate said "enough is enough" - we simply can't afford it. We can't afford to fix the roads that those cars would travel upon, let alone subsidise car purchases - even of ones that are fuel efficient.
So I hope that help explain why California voters did what they did.
Cheers and hope,
-SCD