Calif. Voters to Choose Between Economy and Environment in Ballot Initiative

For decades, California has led the country in enacting tough environmental laws -- in part because rapid growth made cities such as Los Angeles the most polluted in the country.

California's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed the 2006 law that requires a statewide cut in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Greener, but more expensive energy

	California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has touted California's green energy laws as among the best in the world.

Environmentalists cheered the legislation, which is still known as Assembly Bill 32 even though it's now a law and officially titled the Global Warming Solutions Act. Schwarzenegger boasted that California led the nation, and possibly the world, in promoting green energy and reducing dangerous emissions.

Green energy is more expensive, however, as power companies must meet a requirement that 33 percent of all electricity comes from wind, solar and alternative energy sources. Already, California's car emission standards make vehicles more expensive than in any other state.

One central California business owner recently told the NewsHour he'd have to replace 37 of his 38 semi-tractor vehicles within four years, probably forcing him out of business and costing the community 40 jobs.

Trying to turn back regulations

	Oil companies like Valero are working to get rid of AB32.

Building on business owners' complaints, Texas oil companies Tesoro, Valero and some smaller allies decided now was a good time to try to get rid of AB32.

Claiming the rules were too stringent in the midst of an economic recession, they wrote an initiative measure that if approved by voters would suspend provisions of the law until the state keeps its unemployment rate to no higher than 5.5 percent for one whole year. The current unemployment rate is 12.2 percent, making that benchmark highly unlikely.

As of September, Prop23 supporters have contributed more than $8 million to the ballot measure, while opponents have raised about $6 million, according to the Los Angeles Times. At the same time, Facebook and websites are proliferating, including StandAgainstProp23.com, StopTexasOil.org and StopDirtyEnergyProp.com. The measure's backers have mounted a website, Yeson23.com.

Where do the candidates stand on the issue?

	Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has said she would suspend the Global Warming Solutions Act for a year if elected.

Proposition 23 has become a standout issue for candidates in the upcoming elections. 

In the governor's race, both major party candidates officially oppose Prop23, but Republican candidate Meg Whitman wants to suspend AB32 for a year, saying the strict measures set forth by the Global Warming Solutions Act are costing companies too much, raising the price of electricity and making fewer jobs available for Californians.

In a statement released by her campaign, Whitman says the issue is a political Catch-22, forcing law makers to choose between environmental responsibility and the need to lower the unemployment rate.

“This is not an easy issue. While green jobs are an important and growing part of our state’s economic future, we cannot forget the other 97% of jobs in key sectors like manufacturing, agriculture, transportation and energy. We compete for jobs with many other states, and our environmental policy must reflect that reality,” the statement read.

Democratic candidate Jerry Brown said Whitman's position was "two empty gestures in one press release" and called it an example of "transparent politicking."

Brown says the focus should be on creating more green jobs that will have a better pay-off in the long run. He contends that reversing the mandate would lead to less urgency to invest in those projects.

What do Californians think?

	California voters have been bombarded with ads for and against overturning the clean air legislation.

With money pouring in from all over the country, California voters are now barraged with TV commercials on both sides.

Polling on the issue is a bit murky, since the issues are fairly complicated. In July, the Public Policy Institute of California asked, "Should the government take action to reduce emissions right away or wait until the state economy and job situation improve?"

A small majority, 53 percent, said to take action immediately, while 42 percent said to wait.