START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good

California Proves Reducing Emissions Can Grow the Economy

California Proves Reducing Emissions Can Grow the Economy

“The California experience demonstrates that reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can be achieved while also growing the economy,” declares a study by Study by Next 10, nonpartisan organization. California enacted the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) in 2006 which sets the target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Titled 2010 California Clean Energy Index, the study reports that during the first half of 2010 California attracted 40 percent of global clean tech venture capital, totaling over $11.6 billion. For every dollar of GDP generated in 2008, California’s economy needed 32 percent less carbon-per dollar than it did in 1990.

California leads the nation in clean tech patents, 39 percent of which are for solar energy patents, and 20 percent for advanced battery technology patents. Clean tech manufacturing employment increased by 19 percent from 1995 to 2008, but total manufacturing employment decreased by four percent.

California residents “actually pay less overall for electricity due to our state’s energy efficiency standards,” the study says. California manufacturers spend less on electricity. New electricity-intensive businesses “significantly outnumber closings and exits,” with 82,000 new businesses in electricity-intensive industries opened.

Despite popular opinion about California’s unfriendly business climate, more businesses are starting up than closing or leaving. California experiences a net gain of about 58,500 new businesses every year on average.

The report concludes “opportunities for increased competitiveness and greater savings have emerged for California’s businesses as they respond to the impacts of the changing business climate.”

A ballot initiative, Proposition 23, would suspend AB 32 until the unemployment rate stays at 5.5 percent for a year. As Jeff Anderson, executive director of the Clean Economy Network, says, the study “reinforces the point that clean tech is a bright spot in California’s otherwise depressed economy.” Anderson added, “Passing Prop 23 would put all of these news jobs and businesses in jeopardy.  To maintain California’s leadership, we must vote No on Prop 23.”


Read more: , , ,

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it


+ add your own
7:57AM PDT on Oct 19, 2010

"leyna left a comment on the following article:

California Proves Reducing Emissions Can Grow the Economy

fianlly posotive news"

It may be good news but not the news they promote in the headline!

7:49PM PDT on Oct 18, 2010

fianlly posotive news

8:34AM PDT on Oct 16, 2010

"yup ; )

Michael left a comment on the following article:

"Time to ACT ON IT " Act on what? Artificially raising the price of everything?"

You do know that the increase is a result of the presssure to force a "green" energy economy?

10:47AM PDT on Oct 15, 2010

good news

10:44AM PDT on Oct 15, 2010

"Time to ACT ON IT "

Act on what? Artificially raising the price of everything?

2:30AM PDT on Oct 15, 2010

Time to ACT ON IT

9:29PM PDT on Oct 14, 2010

sounds like good news

7:44PM PDT on Oct 14, 2010

It's good to hear some positive news about California.

9:18AM PDT on Oct 14, 2010

"Imported oil should be taxed at the amount it costs for military protection of supplies;"

Just who is going to pay this "tax"? Oh yes, we do not have permanent bases in any of the major oil producing regions. So how do you support this claim?

"Air pollution sources (such as gasoline) should pay the healthcare costs associated with those sources (estimated at up to $1/gallon of gas);"

It seems that such a cost would be very difficult to determine. With consumption being around 382 million per day ..., who is going to pay?

"Non-renewable resources should begin to pay for the replacement costs of when those resources are exhausted (like it or not, oil is finite)."

Pay to replace a resource that is permanently consumed. Surely you do not mean that the way it sounds. But that would just be another Government tax that would not be used as planned. Plus, again, who is going to pay the tax?

9:07AM PDT on Oct 14, 2010

"indeed perhaps the best thing that can be done to ensure the adoption of green technologies is to eliminate the subsidies enjoyed by polluting or inefficient technologies. "

This seems designed to to imply that air quality is terrible. When there has been a steady improvement in air qualtiy since the '70s.

add your comment

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

Maybe this should make people think of what pigs endure thanks to these farmers (and the people who ask…

meet our writers

Beth Buczynski Beth is a freelance writer and editor living in the Rocky Mountain West. So far, Beth has lived in... more
ads keep care2 free

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

site feedback


Problem on this page? Briefly let us know what isn't working for you and we'll try to make it right!