The way the proponents spin this is that AB32 means higher energy costs which they say results in a loss of blue-collar jobs. The opponents point to the large

The way the proponents spin this is that AB32 means higher energy costs which they say results in a loss of blue-collar jobs. The opponents point to the large number of green energy jobs that can be directly attributed to AB32 plus the obvious environmental benefits. Personally I find the job loss argument hard to quantify because there is no direct correlation while it is pretty easy to count the number of green energy companies and the resulting jobs that have sprung up in California. Also, it is pretty much impossible to ignore the fact that the proponents of prop 23 that are touting blue collar job losses as the reason to suspend AB32 are not the folks who traditionally would give a crap about blue collar job losses. The list of Donors for prop 23 is pretty telling: http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_23_(2010)#Donors http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposi... Compare that to the list of opponents: http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_23_(2010)#Opponents http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposi... Pretty amazing that 42% (as of the current numbers) voted Yes on this one.