YouTube - A Message from James Cameron: Vote NO on 23

Gov. Schwarzenegger (Schwarzenegger) on Twitter

Doesn't give all the facts. There are other things going on with prop. 23, not just "imminent environmental destruction". It's like showing a commertial for how patriotic and beautiful China is, when there are other sides to the story...

Go on.

myeas... Do continue...

Yes, go on...

Everyone have their tinfoil ready?

Somehow, if something goes against any liberal/enviro-wacko idea around here, it's automatically crazy. Let's look at some facts.

What is Proposition 23? The official initiative statute is:

Prop. 23 is fighting against another global warming law that will cost the jobs of over a million workers. People against prop. 23 are supporting the implementation of AB32, which states that it will (quote) "...reduce California greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050." In the process, however, according to CARB's (the California Air Resources Board's) Economic Allocation and Advisory Committee (quote), "AB32 will cause California households to face higher prices both directly for electricity, natural gas, and gasoline, and indirectly as businesses pass costs for GHG reduction on to consumers." Directly according to CARB's most recent analysis, they acknowledged that AB32 could not "change the course of climate change."

The bill is a useless, price-racking environmentalist attempt to receive more money from Californians, which is exactly what they don't need right now. California already has a $20 billion deficit. Prop. 23 is pretty much the solution they have to this crisis. If AB32 were to take hold, it's estimated that the average California household will pay an additional $3,800 per year in higher AB32 costs. This is, again, according to CARB. (Does Cameron look at the facts at all? )

Let us remember that California has the most strict environmental laws in the U.S. already. Prop. 23 will not abate or remove the hundreds of laws that already protect the environment, reduce air pollution, etc. etc., protecting Californian health. Prop. 23 is only against AB32, which applies only to greenhouse gas emissions. CARB (again) has stated that AB32 has (quote), "no direct public health impacts."

However, the statute is only a suspension on AB32 until further notice. Once unemployment is under 5.5% (as it says), the suspention will be lifted. Right now, California simply cannot afford AB32. Maybe Ah-nold and his idiot tactics as governor (which put California under staggering multi-billion-dollar debt, worse than it was in before) agrees with self-proclaimed eco-terrorist Cameron that the people of the state do not matter, but I think they do. And the California State Firefighters' Association, as well as the California Small Business Association, the National Tax Limitation Committee, and many others.




Who's wearing tinfoil now?

Ending prohibition would go some way towards solving California's deficit problem...

Yeah, it's crazy isn't it! I don't understand why a message board for a film with a strong liberal/environmentalist theme attracts so many liberal/environmentally minded people.

That's kind of insulting...

Oh come on, I meant it in good spirits!

That's the thing about me. I'm like Dwight Schrute when it comes to jokes around here.

texas mayyyne. don't they already have enough money from all the oil? they've got 3 nba teams, isnt that enough XD

so, i did some reading on proposition 23. if im wrong correct me, but what it seems like is California has to reduce it's carbon levels to what they were in 1990 by 2020 and people are mad because it will prevent Texas oil companies from doing stuff and will also lead to the loss of 1 million jobs. yes, no?

Great video... wish I could vote on that

So true

Woodsprite, stop trolling. If you want to complain specifically about the vote, make a thread. You aren't very good at 'not getting into debates'

Woodsprite, do some research.


Proposition 23 is a vote to suspend AB23 of the Global Warming Act of 2006. It will suspend this act until such time as California's unemployment rate is less than 5.5% for at least four consecutive quarters.


It has nothing to do with repealing the act, only suspending it. It has nothing to do with the deficit. Stop fearmongering.

Wow... did you seriously not read what I posted?

...Wow, did you seriously not read what I posted? Here, I'll quote myself:

Aihwa, it's like you have a serious problem with reading anything you argue against. What is this, like... the 18th time, now when this has happened?


HNM: Read my post. I'm not trolling, I'm showing facts. Facts about a U.S. proposed statute, not a U.K. parliament bill.