It is not a headline we would expect to see, but that is exactly what is happening in our state as we speak.
In 2006, the California Legislature passed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. The Governor then signed this law to make our state the leader in fighting greenhouse gas pollution. I hope you will consider joining me in working to ensure that Big Oil does not get its way in California by eviscerating our landmark climate change legislation.
California's Attorney General is uniquely positioned to stand up for strong, effective enforcement of our state's environmental laws. That is why I am calling on each and every candidate for California Attorney General -- Democratic and Republican -- to denounce this effort by Big Oil to slash through our state's environmental protections for their own corporate gain.
Down in the Lone Star State, they like to say that everything is bigger in Texas. I am not sure they were talking about the lies Texas companies like to try and sell the good people of California, but they should have been. In fact, with April 1st just around the corner, it seems that Texas Oil Companies bankrolling the initiative to suspend AB 32 are counting on Californians to be willing to be fooled again (remember what Enron did to Golden State anyone?)
Anti-AB 32 groups first relied on the now completely debunked "Varshney Study" to "prove" that passing this legislation would be the ultimate job killer and lead to skyrocketing consumer costs. But now that the Legislative Analyst's Office has torn the research to shreds, calling it "unreliable" and "essentially useless", the anti-AB32 force is focusing on some new junk science to stand in as a replacement.
The California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA) is using an oil industry-funded study conducted by the Pacific Research Institute to support its argument of the negative impacts of clean energy legislation. And it's no surprise that CMTA is the voice promoting this study, since the group has already announced its support for "AB 32 Suspension" in a recent press release as well as shelling out big bucks as one of the main sources funding the "AB 32 Implementation Group" (which contrary to the title, is code for the force working to suspend AB 32).
But like we saw with the Varshney Study, just because you paid a scientist to create it doesn't make it true. So before you buy into the "facts", make sure you are aware of the variables that are manipulating the data behind the scenes:
The oil industry: Valero is a leading member of CMTA, contributing over $500,000 to help suspend AB32. Also, Valero lobbyist Michael Carpenter happens to be one of the board members of the Pacific Research Institute, which has funded the study.
The author of the study Thomas Tanton: consultant to the oil and gas industry and Senior Research Fellow with the Pacific Research institute where a Valero lobbyist sits on his board. He is also a former VP at the Institute for Energy Research (IER), an organization funded by oil and gas interests, which has received over $200,000 of funding from ExxonMobil.
CMTA's VP of Government Relations, Dorothy Rothrock: was an industry energy consultant for years before joining CMTA. From the moment AB 32 was signed into law Rothrock criticized it - even though unemployment was 4.8% at the time - which makes her support for enacting the initiative when unemployment levels reach that low again very doubtful.
Now that this report is in the same trashcan as the Varshney Study, we're sure that another one is on the way. Wouldn't it be better if the oil companies just stood up and said, look, we don't want progress on clean energy because we will lose in billions in dollars in profits? Wouldn't that be more honest? We doubt that will happen but in the meantime, don't be a fool this April.
AB 32 is a proven job creator and will continue to drive innovation and success for California. It's bad news for big oil companies, and we don't need to create a fake study to know that.
So it's been over a week since Texas oil refiners (and two of California's worst polluters) Valero and Tesoro ponied up close to $2 million to launch a petition drive to get an initiative on the November ballot to kill AB 32, California's nation-leading legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels and encourage job creation in the booming green/clean energy and tech industries. Naturally, Valero, Tesoro and assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Chino), one of the initiative's primary sponsors, are doing their best to keep Texas Big Oil's involvement in the petition a secret, refusing to confirm or deny that Valero/Tesoro are actually the sole funders of the signature drive and stand to profit from insuring that Californians continue to breath some of the dirtiest, most unhealthy air in the nation.
Unfortunately for them, the secret is out. Supporters of AB 32, the environment and clean energy started a website, NoOnValero.com, to let Californians know that the effort to kill AB 32 is about Big Oil profits, not saving or creating jobs. They also staged a rally in front of a Sacramento Valero station to tell Valero to mind its own business. Below is news coverage of the event, and you can also visit the No On Valero Youtube channel to hear what the protesters think of Valero's involvement in trying to kill AB 32.
Not to be outdone, the Teabaggers, America's favorite racists and climate change/evolution deniers, decided to stage their own pro-Valero rally the next week. That's right, a rally to celebrate the fact that an out-of-state Big Oil company -- a member of one of America's most hated industries after banks and health insurers -- is attempting to further corrupt our political system and compromise the health of Californians. Because apparently Teabaggers, who claim to value what they call "freedom", think it's better if unelected Texas CEOs of heavy-polluting corporations write California's anti-pollution laws. Also, someone may want to tell the Teabaggers that Valero's involvement in the petition is supposed to be, you know, a secret. And I'll be curious to hear what Valero thinks of getting the support of a group known mostly for racism, unhinged anger, willful ignorance and irrational, apocalyptic conspiracy theories.
Stealthily and without fanfare, a petition has been launched to get a measure on the November ballot suspending AB 32, California's landmark legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions and spur green job growth. So who is funding the signature drive? None other than San Antonio-based oil refiners Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp. -- the #7 and #8 biggest polluters in California. From the LA Times:
Two Texas-based refinery giants have pledged as much as $2 million to fund signature gathering for a ballot initiative to suspend California's landmark global warming law [AB 32], according to Sacramento sources.
The companies, Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp., own refineries in California that would be forced under the law to slash emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
But neither Valero or Tesoro is owning up to it.
A Tesoro spokesman did not respond to inquiries. But the company's website invites visitors to lobby Congress to ensure "fair" climate legislation and fight any effort by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Bill Day, a Valero spokesman, declined to confirm or deny the company's involvement, saying that "any contributions would come out in normal disclosures" under California's campaign laws.
And neither is Dan Logue (R-Marysville), one of the initiative's main sponsors. From NYTimes:
Dan Logue, the Republican assemblyman behind the suspension, also refused to discuss where funds had originated.
So forget about the astroturf groups claiming the movement to kill AB 32 is a bunch of small local businesses worried about their survival in a tough economy. The mask is off the anti-AB 32 movement, and behind it is exactly what we thought we would find: big oil, big pollution, big corporations and the corporatist Republicans who love them. That's why Logue, Valero and Tesoro refuse to admit where the money for the ballot initiative is coming from, even if it means possibly violating California Fair Political Practices Committee regulations. The fact that Texas Big Oil is funding an initiative to keep California's air dirty and kill its burgeoning green economy is a PR nightmare.
So let's have no more illusions about what the move to kill AB 32 is all about.
The move by republicans and polluters to suspend/kill AB 32, California's Global Warming Solutions Act that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and spur green job growth, was dealt a devastating blow on Friday -- one of the authors of the much-cited (and much-criticized) Varshney/Tootelian report (VTR), which predicts an economic catastrophe if California implements AB 32, is now backing away from the report's claims.
Facing yet another round of criticism -- this time in a report by Stanford University economist Jim Sweeney that found VTR to be "highly biased...based on poor logic and unsound economic analysis" and overstates the costs of AB 32 "by a factor of at least 10" -- Sanjay Varshney has refused to defend his report's claims. When asked by a reporter for the Sacramento Business Journal to respond to Sweeney's criticism, Varshney, who is Dean of the Business School at California State University Sacramento, would only say, "I haven't really kept up with the debate. It will be very difficult for me to comment." (You need to be a subscriber to see the full article.)
Hardly what you'd call a full-throated defense, or even a boilerplate response about his confidence in both his methods and his conclusions. And Varshney should be well-prepared to address the kind of criticism found in the Stanford report since it echoes criticisms found by other economists, as well as the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The main and most obvious criticism of VTR is that it only looks at the projected costs of implementing AB 32 ($24.9 billion) while purposefully omitting any of the savings that AB 32 would generate ($40.4 billion) -- a net savings of $15.5 billion.
California has always represented a better future, and we seem more impatient to get there than anyone else. The examples are endless: the settlers risking everything to reinvent themselves on California's fertile soil, the surfers who decided they'd rather surf the streets on skateboards than wait for waves, to the dotcom boom that created the internet age. When California is ready to lead, it's best if you get out of the way. Because when California leads, it often benefits the entire country -- and sometimes the world.
And California is ready to do it again, with a plan to guide America to a greener, cleaner, more sustainable future, and pull the nation out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. That plan is AB 32 (aka the Global Warming Solutions Act), California's nation-leading initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) to 1990 levels through a mix of energy efficiency, clean/sustainable energy investment and regulations to force California's polluters to clean up their own messes. In addition to improving the environment and the health of Californians, study after study show that AB 32 will be a major job creator with little or no impact on small businesses. That's why over 2,400 large and small businesses, many in California, have joined American Businesses for Clean Energy, a diverse coalition calling on Congress to pass clean energy and climate legislation. And with the green/clean economy creating job growth and venture capital investment at a faster rate than the rest of the economy, California could position itself to lead the nation and the world in exportable green technology and solutions, just as it has with computers, software and the internet.
But this is not the first time California has attempted to lead the nation with a pioneering piece of legislation to reduce GHGE. In 1990, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed the Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate. It stated that any large automaker selling cars in California would have to derive at least 10% of its overall sales from cars that produce practically zero emissions -- with 2% of the cars producing no emissions at all -- by 2003. That meant that unless an automaker wanted to lose the huge California car market, they would have to begin making all-electric vehicles.
The #1 argument by corporations and politicians who oppose reducing pollution, fighting climate change and moving America to a cleaner, greener, more sustainable future is that doing so will cost the country jobs and hurt the economy. In fact, since many corporations and politicians claim to believe that climate change is a serious issue that must be dealt with (eventually), the "sustainability = job killer" argument is essentially the only one they have.
And it's a lie -- scaremongering from dirty energy companies so they can keep polluting at current levels, protect their unsustainable energy monopoly and maximize their short-term profits. They claim that responsibly cleaning up their own poisonous mess -- instead of "socializing" the cost of dealing with it by spewing it into the air or dumping it in our oceans and streams -- will force them to raise energy rates. This is a way to blackmail small businesses into defending the status quo and joining their efforts to kill any legislation that promotes efforts to reduce pollution or invest in sustainable energy. But the dirty energy companies are simply fighting to be the last of the dinosaurs, forestalling the inevitable day when they join the fossils that created their fortunes.
The green economy isn't some untested theory or pie-in-the-sky fantasy -- it's already here, and its kicking butt. So here are some links that show why reducing pollution and embracing sustainable energy and green technology will create jobs and give our economy the boost it needs.
(AB 32 is important for a number of reasons... - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Imagine if Toyota made this statement:
"It has come to our attention that, due to faulty gas pedals, a small number of our cars have killed or injured a small percentage of our customers. However, to recall and repair our cars to address this problem would simply be too costly, especially in this difficult economy. So we are delaying a recall for one year, after which time we will re-evaluate the economic climate and decide whether conditions are favorable enough to initiate a recall. We ask for your patience and understanding during this time."
Naturally, there would be a furious uproar. How dare a company attempt to put short-term economic interests ahead of people's health and safety? Yet this is essentially what the opponents of AB 32, California's nation-leading environmental legislation that seeks to reduce greenhouse gases in California to 1990 levels by 2020, are asking Californians to do. And since there is ample evidence that AB 32 would actually provide a needed boost to California's economy without harming small businesses, what AB 32 opponents are attempting to do is arguably worse.
Not wanting to appear pro-pollution or tone deaf to Californians' concerns about the environment, opponents of AB 32 -- like Meg Whitman and dirty energy astroturf front the AB 32 Implementation Group (an especially Orwellian moniker for a group that doesn't want AB 32 implemented) -- claim they are deeply concerned about the state of the environment in California. And they should -- Californians breathe some of the worst air in the nation, with 95% of Californians living in areas with unhealthy air. The top four most polluted cities in America when it comes to ozone (the primary ingredient in smog) are in California, with six California cities in the top ten. When it comes to the most polluted cities ranked by particulates in the air, the top three cities are in California, with six in the top ten.
Today seems to be the big day to make a media blitz of sorts for the plan to repeal AB 32. Take this choice morsel from the Senate Republican caucus in their email "briefing report":
The term "global warming" has recently shifted to "climate change" (thus allowing the alarmists to blame any change in weather/climate on humans). Few deny that climate change exists; change is a defining characteristic of climate. Whether mankind causes climate change and has the ability to overcome natural forces to stop it is another story. It should be remembered that CO2 is a gas that occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It is exhaled by humans, and is absorbed by trees and plants to produce oxygen, is not toxic and in fact, is essential to life on earth. The growing body of evidence suggests that CO2 impact on climate change is marginal (if there is an impact at all). Additionally, it has been revealed that much of the data to support AGW heretofore has been manipulated, skewed and compromised to support a highly politicized environmental-industrial complex. The scientific "consensus" of AGW does not exist. The state ignores this reality at its own peril.
Except, oh, right consesus does exist. It is called the 2007 IPCC report, a report that surveyed all the literature, a great deal of scientists, and a whole mess of data. To quote the IPCC:
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
The Republicans counter back with some junk science bought and paid for by the oil companies, and just try to muddy up the waters enough so that they can pretend that the consensus is just a bunch of nerdy eggheads who don't step outside. Meanwhile, the Sacramento Bee has a profile of Asm. Dan Logue, who is shepherding the AB 32 through the initiative process. After they get done with their comparisons of Logue to Peter Falk's Columbo (the visual similarity is kind of hard to miss), they move on to the thornier issue for Logue: he hasn't the resources to get this measure off the ground.
But Logue has not yet started gathering signatures and his drive is gasping for money - lots of it. He says he has $600,000 in commitments, but none has been collected, and $1 million more is needed. (SacBee)
Logue is facing a very steep battle here. There are many industry groups opposed to repeal, and the CalChamber has yet to come out either way. But, in terms of money, Logue is going to face the biggest test there. You see, Arnold Schwarzenegger views AB 32 as central to his legacy in California. Repeal would be the complete repudiation of what little big change he has accomplished in the state. You can be sure that Arnold will do his damndest to ensure that no big donors give to this POS.
No doubt that there is a lot of right-wing craziness out there right now. And they are certainly itching for a fight on AB 32, but whether this actually gets on the ballot to be considered, let alone passing, is an open question. Nonetheless, if you care about the climate change issue, the November 2010 election could be critical with or without this repeal. Meg Whitman has already signaled her intention to suspend AB 32 as soon as she gets a chance. The right-wingers have two cracks at the apple here, and only one needs to succeed to set our state back from our position as a leader on the fight against climate change.
Oh, and just as a toss-away in the Logue story, and a fact worth knowing about the man, the Bee mentions one of his big achievements as a Yuba County Supervisor: attracting a Wal-Mart to Marysville. I'm sure the local businesses sincerely appreciated his efforts.
Steve Poizner appeared on the John and Ken show (you know, the heads on a pike guys). He was there to show that he was one with the Tea Party people, and was going to slash and burn through the state government. He spent a lot of time on how he's slashed the Department of Insurance. He, it's easy if you just let the insurance companies watch themselves right? Who needs regulators?
Anyway, he was then asked for contrasts between himself and the Meg Whitman. Here's a transcript of a portion of his response.
STEVE POIZNER: Well you figure her out, because on one hand she tries to come across tough on the environment because she knows she's on the spot now in the Republican primary, on the other hand, in 2007 and 2008 she gave $300,000 to the Environmental Defense Fund. Now Google the Environmental Defense Fund, they're suing farmers over the Delta Smelt? You ask her, how can she do that? How can she actually endorse and campaign for Barbara Boxer in 2006? Now, how come she didn't vote most of her life?
Emphasis mine. Go back and read that again. Poizner is saying that Whitman is "playing" tough on the environment, while he, in fact, really is "tough on the environment." What does that mean? Has there been anything more terrifying come out of a candidates lips with respect to the environment than this?
Does this mean that Poizner himself will go around kicking down trees and digging holes in the search for oil in state parks? Or will he just allow corporations free reign of the state?
Whatever the meaning, it opens a window into what it would mean to elect either of these candidates. We are not only talking about suspension of AB 32, we're talking about candidates that are looking for ways that they can crawl over themselves to sell out the environment. It's not just insulting to environmentalists, it's downright scary.
Just as Tom Campbell announced he was dropping out of the California governor's race to run for the United States Senate, one of the two remaining Republican candidates in the race ramped up his attack on California's Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32).
Steve Poizner-not to be outdone by fellow candidate Meg Whitman's announcement in fall 2009 that she would suspend AB 32 on her first day in office as governor-put out a press release this week announcing his support for the so-called "jobs" initiative" (actually an outright attack on AB 32) that will appear on the California ballot in November 2010 if anti-environmental forces can gather enough signatures for it to qualify.
Poizner's and Whitman's attacks on California's landmark global warming law have earned them unflattering nicknames from Calbuzz: "Smokestack Steve" and "Monoxide Meg."
It is increasingly clear that Californians who care about our state's natural beauty and the health of our communities must mobilize to "Build a Greener Governor" (http://www.greengov2010.org/) before the candidates, including the undeclared Democratic candidate Jerry Brown, take this race to the bottom on the environment any further.
This anti-AB 32 initiative is just the latest chapter in a sustained and coordinated effort to roll back the progress the Golden State has made against global warming and greenhouse gas emissions that threaten our health, our economy and our planet.
AB 32, California's landmark global warming regulation legislation, is now a couple of years old. Mary Nichols and the California Air Resources Board is working to create a reasonable proposal to begin the regulation of greenhouse gases. The system they have been discussing as of late, a modified cap and trade system, is far from perfect, but it is a pretty good start.
Yet, that doesn't mean that AB 32 is out of the woods. Far from it. As shown from the recent Copenhagen conference, we as global community have a long way to go to agree on any meaningful change. And sometimes, you just have to accept that some will be leaders. California should be such a leader. Of course, being a leader carries risk, but it also presents great opportunity. As a leader in green tech, we will be poised to start selling this stuff around the world as adoption becomes more widespread.
Recently, Asm. Dan Logue from North-eastern California, decided that he wanted to pretty much repeal AB 32. Logue's AB 118 would pretty much do that. You can find a letter opposing the measure sent to Natural Resources Chair Nancy Skinner over the flip.
But, AB 118 was pretty much a campaign tactic from the moment it was inserted into another bill via "gut and amend." Nearly identical language now appears in an initiative that will go out for circulation on January 26, sponsored by Tom McClintock and Ted Costa, the founder of the recall Davis campaign. They even have a 1990s-era website.
We cannot assume that such an effort will be easily turned aside. If the campaign can get some right-wing cash in the bank and go out with paid signature gatherers, this could end up being a rather high profile item on the November ballot.
Meanwhile, on the GOP primary campaign trail, Whitman and Poizner are climbing over each other about who hates AB 32 more. We have to assume that if either is elected, they will immediately suspend AB 32, and we will be back to square one. So, the opponents of AB 32 really have two cracks at the apple. One in the form of the initiative if it qualifies, the other in the race for governor.
It's just one more reason to oppose a Whitman candidacy.
UPDATE by Robert: From what I am hearing, the anti-AB 32 initiative is likely to make the November ballot. November 2010 is going to make November 2005 look like the preseason.
California's Sarah Palin (aka Meg Whitman) has taken notice of the Courage Campaign radio ad launched today on radio stations across the state educating the public about Whitman's position on global warming. She just sent this email out to her list:
Dear Supporter,
A group of liberal activists headed by Howard Dean's former California campaign chair today launched a negative radio ad attacking Meg Whitman for her common-sense, pro-jobs environmental policies.
Fight back with Meg. She has led the call to put a one-year moratorium on California's AB 32, which has been estimated to negatively affect one million jobs in California. California cannot afford to hastily implement new environmental regulations that could further delay our economic recovery.
Coincidentally, the attack ad debuted on the same day that a new poll was released showing that Meg is beating the likely Democratic nominee Jerry Brown among independent voters.
National Democrats have already named Meg a top target and now the liberal "Courage Campaign" is taking up the call.
See their attack here.
Can we count on you to help beat these special interest groups and restore California? If you can contribute $15, $25 or $50, please link here to help fight back.
It's not surprising that Democrats and their special interest groups are already working hard to try to defeat Meg in the Republican primary. They want their chosen candidate, likely Jerry Brown, to face a different, weaker Republican candidate next November. We are not going to let that happen.
Thank you,
Jillian Hasner
Campaign Manager, Meg Whitman 2010
Some quick points. First, it was indeed entirely coincidental that our ad launched the day the PPIC poll came out. We'd been planning this ad for about a week now, but had no clue that PPIC was even doing a poll, certainly not that they were going to release it today. Not that it would have made any difference.
Contrary to Jillian Hasner's claims, the Courage Campaign does not endorse candidates for elected office. Jerry Brown is not our "chosen candidate" - we don't have one, period.
The Courage Campaign's goal is simply to make the public aware of Whitman's views on global warming legislation. Specifically, that she believes AB 32 should be suspended.
The Courage Campaign thought Californians should know about that. And our members agreed, putting up the money to get this ad produced and now aired on stations in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and the Silicon Valley.
You can hear the ad by clicking this link. And you can donate to help support and expand the ad buy at the same link. Just a few dollars - $25, $50, $100, whatever you can give - will help spread the word.
We've already been getting some earned media attention on this ad. Last night Candy Crowley mentioned it on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360° show. And on Tuesday, Carla Marinucci covered it at the SF Chronicle blog.
We'd love it if you could help us expand the buy. Meg Whitman is blanketing the state with her ads. The Courage Campaign doesn't have those kind of resources, but with your help we can get this ad on more radio stations and hold Whitman accountable.
Over the flip is the transcript of the ad.
Note: I'm the Public Policy Director for the Courage Campaign
(From our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
First of its kind economic analysis shows significant cuts in global warming pollution will cost small businesses only pennies
Los Angeles County - As international climate treaty negotiations begin in Copenhagen amid controversy over economic impacts, a new report shows that the costs for small business operating under California's landmark climate law (AB 32) can be measured in pennies. Conducted by leading economists and released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today, the report finds that AB 32 policies will only increase the percent of small business revenue spent on energy by only 0.3 percentage points--from 1.4 to 1.7 percent--in 2020. In a case study which examines a real world small business--Border Grill restaurant--the report finds AB 32 will cost diners a mere 3 cents extra per $20 meal in 2020.
The analysis, The Economic Impact of AB 32 on California Small Businesses ( www.ucsusa.org/small_business ), a peer-reviewed first-of-its-kind analysis, uses empirical data on the cost characteristics of small businesses to estimate the economic impacts of AB 32 and was commissioned by UCS and conducted by The Brattle Group, an international economic consulting firm.
"Our report finds that the incremental cost impact of AB 32 on the average California small business will be relatively small and definitely manageable," said Jurgen Weiss of the Brattle Group, and co-author of the report. "The AB 32 cost impact pales in comparison to the effect of inflation over ten years, and falls well within the range of historic cost variation most small businesses face everyday regardless of climate policy."
The Brattle Group projected the likely changes in electricity, natural gas, and gasoline prices due to the major AB 32 policies: cap and trade (which puts a price on carbon), a 33% renewable energy standard, increased energy efficiency measures, and a low-carbon fuel standard.
The Griffith R. Harsh IV and Margaret C. Whitman Charitable Foundation in 2007 contributed $100,000 to the Environmental Defense Fund, which is now at odds with Whitman over water policy. The foundation also invested $3 million in hedge funds based in the Cayman Islands - a Caribbean tax haven that's been the subject of political controversy. (SJ Merc 11/6/09)
Meanwhile, the task that AB 32 seeks out to accomplish, reduce carbon levels to 1990 levels by 2020, is not impossible. In fact, San Francisco will achieve that goal by 2012, and is on track to beat that mark considerably. Mayor Newsom says that that the City will likely reduce total carbon emissions by 20 over the ten year period of 2002-2012. Sure, there are differences between SF and the rest of the state, the main one being the relatively stagnant population in our 7x7 mile corner of the Peninsula. However, going green is not nearly as challenging as Whitman makes it out to be.
And heck, she just ask some of her foundation recpients about that. As Robert pointed out, this is your Republican front-runner. W00t!
There's a ton of bickering back and forth, between environmentalists and climate change deniers about the cost of AB 32, our landmark greenhouse gas regulation bill. They argue about energy cost, and just how much of the state's GDP, in either direction, will be affected due to proposed regulations.
Clearly, there will be an impact. Will the increase in green jobs offset the (at least initially) higher cost of energy? How much will the cost of energy increase, and how long will it take to come to some sort of equilibrium. These are all good questions, but for some reason, both sides are ignoring the massive gorilla waiving his arms in the scene, the original reason we started all of this.
Climate change itself has massive costs for California, mitigation is an end unto itself. In this SacBee article today, the costs of climate change itself are pretty much ignored.
California is particularly vulnerable to climate change. We face big risk along our coast of losing homes and property to rising sea levels.We face the danger of desertification of our Central Valley, long the produce market of America. We are inching close to not only not being able to grow food, but not even being able to provide enough drinking water for the state.
And yet, while we spend years calculating the price of action against climate change, we continue to fail to price in the risk of inaction. When we truly consider the cost of inaction, is there any doubt as to the right course of action?
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today dismissed a vow by Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman to suspend California's landmark greenhouse gas law if she's elected to succeed him next year as "just rhetoric that is going on among the candidates."
"You will hear all kinds of stories," Schwarzenegger told an audience at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. "What will happen in reality and what they will do when they go into office is probably a whole different ballgame, and I think she will probably reconsider what she said.
"I'm sure she does not want to be counted as one of those Republicans that will want to move us back to the Stone Age or something like that," the Republican governor said. "So I would pay no attention to this kind of rhetoric."
Of course, relics from the Stone Age are the target demographic for a Republican primary, so Whitman has to say what she said. And she's not being accused of political pandering by, of all people, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Which should make for a fun weekend when the two appear together at the GOP convention in Indian Wells starting tomorrow.
Poizner's camp issued a statement in response to the story this morning, attacking the Whitman campaign for "refusing to answer simple questions and deliberately lying to cover up the facts" and calling for the candidate to "step aside" and drop out of the race.
"It's understandable that Meg Whitman is ashamed of this record. But it's unacceptable that she continues to run from the record and deceive voters. Though there is no shred of evidence she ever registered as a Republican before 2007, she insists she did, yet she refuses to provide any evidence. Her arrogant answer: 'Go find it,' " Communications Director Jarrod Agen said in a statement. "In the history of America, no one has been elected governor of a state with Meg Whitman's 25 year history of no-show voting. She is unelectable and has tried to cover her lack of honesty with millions of dollars."
Hysterical. By the way, if you think eMeg's voting record is bad, take a look at iCarly's. Quite a team they'll make on the GOP ticket next year...
The Tea Baggers are back! And this time, you best not call them Tea Baggers or else Ted Gaines (R-Placer Co.) will get seriously pissed!
Expecting a high turnout, the Joint Legislative Rules Committee sent out an e-mail yesterday alerting Capitol types to the action.
But the e-mail description didn't exactly capture the plan for the "party" -- it swapped "Tea Party" with "Tea Bag," a term perhaps better suited for a high school locker room than Capitol halls.
The message drew ire from supporters, including Assemblyman Ted Gaines, R-Roseville, who Twitter messaged Capitol Alert: "It's a Tea PARTY & it's important!"
Moments later, Gaines, the committee's vice chair, tweeted that he had asked the Rules staff to send out a corrected e-mail. The committee quickly complied, recalling the first message and sending out an error-free announcement. (CapAlert 8/28/09)
You know, perhaps if they didn't use tea bags as the visual (see the photo of them stacking up boxes of tea bags in DC) then this wouldn't be an issue. But I guess loose leaf tea would be too elitist for these people. And yes, it is very important for people who receive government assistance in federal water projects, in farm subsidies, in other federal and state aid, to let the government how much they truly suck. Or in other words:
Don't let government run my Medicare!
The tea baggers have another target this time: the California Air Resources Board. The irony is that many of these people are the very same people of the Central Valley that CARB is working to protect through preserving air quality. But nonetheless, they've launched an website of paranoia decrying CARB.
However, CARB is essential for the future of not just the Central Valley, but also in creating green jobs and boosting the economy. The folks at this website and at this tea party are telling their supporters to call the governor and tell them how much they hate CARB. So, if you have a moment contact governor Schwarzenegger or retweet my myidea4ca [tweet:
I haven't posted much lately. Frankly I've been very involved in two things. One is working to build a nationwide Green Party organization to help local communities and candidates deal with water issues. That may be important in California some day.
The other is more general and that is what most of this post is about. I have been surprised by what the Obama administration is NOT doing on climate change. I think that I finally have it figured out and it is not good news. Details on the jump.
