Not so. The petrochemical industry had a very different opinion of the move to postpone the state's climate change laws.
"It is the wrong medicine at the wrong time for California's ailing economy," said Charles T. Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, in a statement. "The defeat of Proposition 23 will hurt families across California by destroying jobs and raising the costs of gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity and more."
Proponents of California's Global Warming Solutions Act, or AB 32, say it's the best hope for reducing the build up of greenhouse gas and pollution in a state whose blue skies have often been colored gray or light brown.
However, the fourth paragraph of the initial press release issued by Drevna's group appear to offer a bone to AB 32 proponents. Drevna is quoted as saying:
"The severe economic pain and hardship caused by the extreme mandates of Proposition 23 will accomplish absolutely nothing positive in terms of climate change. They will result in the relocation of jobs and businesses from California to other states and other countries, along with the relocation of carbon emissions produced by those businesses and people. Since every state and nation on Earth share the same atmosphere, moving carbon from one location to another will not bring about any reduction in greenhouse gases."
Huh? (Sub AB 32 for Prop 23 in first sentence in paragraph above and it sounds better.)
I sent an email to the NPRA contact, and David Egner responded, "Thanks. Yes, we caught it and PR Newswire has put out a corrected release at my request."
I receive PR Newswire alerts for anything energy related and am on the mailing list for releases like this one. And after 24 years in the newspaper business, I know a misplaced word or keyboard strike can definitely be a pain.
Of course, electronic fixes are a lot faster than those in newsprint.
Photo courtesy NPRA