Today, Republicans in Washington D.C. held a hearing on increasing the amount of land dedicated to oil shale extraction. Oil shale is a rock that contains a waxy substance called kerogen. When kerogen is heated to extremely high temperatures, it releases a substance that can be turned into crude oil. As with so many things, however, the devil is in the details when it comes to oil shale.
It takes a lot of rock to create oil shale. In fact, pound for pound, oil shale has about the same amount of energy as a baked potato. Given that, in many cases the amount of energy recovered from oil shale is less than the amount of energy used in the extraction process. If that wasn't enough, the technology to develop oil shale is not commercially viable and could likely depend heavily on already scarce water in the West.
So it's with great concern that today's hearing highlighted legislation that would give away millions of acres of public land for oil shale extraction and provide oil companies with more taxpayer subsidies. I hope that California's voice on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources - Central Valley Congressman Jim Costa - will stand strong against these attempts by House Republicans to sell off our country's natural resources.
Congressman Costa represents an area that's been hard hit by environmental challenges - from air pollution that is among the worst in the country to lead and contaminates in the water. The Central Valley knows firsthand the cost of dirty air and water - high asthma rates in our children and many health issues in pregnant women and the elderly.
Given this, I hope that Congressman Costa will speak up on behalf of other communities that may suffer a similar fate if increased oil shale extraction is allowed.
After all, are we willing to sell our health, our children's well-being, and clean air and water for a source of energy that's worth as much as a baked potato?
Pablo Rodríguez is the Executive Director of Communities for a New California (CNC), a statewide civil rights advocacy organization. Prior to CNC, Pablo worked as a Public Policy Consultant as well as serving as Director of the Dolores Huerta Community Organizing Institute. Pablo is committed to achieving public policy that is socially, economically, and environmentally just for California's families.
In America, today, there are three kinds of drivers: those who look at the other gas pumps down at the ol' gas station and think: "Oh my God, I can't believe how much that guy's spending on gas", those who look at their own pump down at the ol' gas station and think: "Oh my God, I can't believe how much I'm spending on gas" - and those who are doing both at the same time.
Naturally, this has brought the Sarah Palins of the world back out in public, and once again the mantra of "Drill, Baby, Drill" can be heard all the way from the Florida coast to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
But what if those folks have it exactly backwards?
What if, in a world of depleting oil resources, the last thing you want to do is use yours up?
To put it another way: why isn't all our oil part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?
You don't have to be a detective to find Dirty Energy's oily fingerprints all over our current national political debate on expanding oil drilling. But it helps that there are still investigative journalists who look into these things every now and again.
Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act" by a 266 to 149 margin. Today, the Huffington Post reveals that the sponsors of the bill, which would expand oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and open the coastal waters of Virginia for exploration, received $8.8 million in contributions from Big Oil.
I'm sure you join me in believing fervently that the industry's millions have absolutely zero influence on the motivations of the bill's sponsors. Not.
According to the Huffington Post:
"The oil and gas industry is one of the most politically active interests groups in Washington. In the 2010 mid-term election cycle alone it spent $30 million in contributions to federal candidates... And those figures pale in comparison to the amount the industry spends on lobbying. In 2010, oil and gas companies spent just under $146 million employing the service of nearly 800 lobbyists."
The "Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act" passed by Big Oil's friends in the House is just the first of a series of largely GOP-supported, fast-tracked bills intended to loosen restrictions on offshore drilling. The three bills passed the House Committee on Natural Resources in April.
Closer to home for Californians, one of the next steps is to put to a House vote HR 1231, or "Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act," which would require that each five-year offshore leasing plan include lease sales in the areas containing the greatest known oil and natural gas reserves. Every five years, the federal government would be required to lease at least 50% of available unleased acreage off the West Coast, Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico and much of the East Coast.
It's been called the "Law of Eventually Drilling Everything" by Richard Charter, senior policy adviser for Defenders of Wildlife. A vote on the House floor is expected next week.
According to California Watch:
"Under existing law, the government decides which areas to lease. This new law would effectively double the current level of offshore drilling. And states, such as California, would have no say in the matter. 'Earlier versions of bills like this generally allowed a state to veto projects,' said Regan Nelson of the Natural Resources Defense Council. 'Californians have consistently made it clear that they oppose new offshore drilling off their coast. This bill is so out of sync of what people want. They're willing to put oil production over all other considerations.'"
Considerations like the clear environmental hazards of drilling, and risks to the public's health and safety. It was only a year ago that the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, creating one of the largest environmental catastrophes ever.
It's mind-boggling that in light of that very recent disaster, federal lawmakers including those that represent California are considering encouraging more drilling off the West Coast.
California Congressman Jeff Dunham claims that he supports the series of bills allowing more drilling in part because domestic energy production will "bring relief at the pump." Rep. Denham is joined by fellow Californians Rep. Tom McClintock and Rep. Jim Costa in supporting the bills.
But a study conducted by the federal government's Energy Information Administration showed that new drilling off the country's coasts would only reduce gas prices by a few cents. (Oops! So much for that argument.)
Compare those pennies to the millions of dollars in contributions being doled out by the oil industry, and suddenly certain lawmakers' urgent calls to allow more risky offshore drilling makes more than enough "cents."
Speaking of something that makes no sense (or cents) for us taxpayers... Americans are still paying for billions of dollars in oil industry tax breaks, despite record oil industry profits and despite the fact that a recent poll found that 74 percent of voters support eliminating tax breaks to oil companies.
According to the national League of Conservation Voters, ExxonMobil recently announced nearly $11 billion in profits; BP announced $5.5 billion profits; and ConocoPhillips announced $3 billion in profits-all in the first three months of 2011. Obscene is the word that comes to mind.
Next week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to bring to the floor a bill, authored by Senator Max Baucus, that would end the billions of dollars in tax breaks for large oil producers--estimated to cost taxpayers $5 billion each year--and increase breaks for clean-energy producers.
As national League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski says of the handouts to Big Oil:
"And as ire over gas prices grows, so will frustration with Members of Congress who remain close to Big Oil. So while Speaker Boehner and others may be confused about where they stand on the issue, the choice is clear: end the Big Oil handouts now or see what the voters think in eighteen months."
California voters made it clear what they thought of Dirty Energy's election meddling last fall by overwhelmingly defeating an oil industry-funded attempt to repeal our landmark clean energy law. I expect we'll once again make it clear in the 2012 elections what we think of elected officials covered in Big Oil's fingerprints--in other words, those who put oil industry profits above the needs of the Californians they claim to represent.
It’s as though we had another Hurricane Katrina furiously driving up the price of fuel, but without the storm. Which makes it interesting that an indie documentary called “Gas Hole,” (trailer), examining the reasons for our high gas prices in the post-Katrina world and oil company influence on the gas-guzzling engines in our cars, is now getting wider release. You can be sure that Exxon didn’t provide the funding for this funny/weird/disturbing doc. (I love the old desert-rat types with faded sedans that get 100 mpg, and their stories of disappearing clean-car patents.)
It's an issue that cannot be covered enough, especially since we're seeing the environmental impact on our very shores and the external costs around the globe in disasters.
The external costs are those not added to the true cost, the cost we pay at the pump and those who usually pay that cost are the poor, the least of us who live on the outskirts of our society, either in our own Country or Globally in less developed Countries.
But as the Gulf nightmare has shown, the costs will become more apparent at home.
Congress is heading back home for the August recess this week. Apparently our Senators need to rest after they failed to take up both a clean energy and climate bill and an oil spill bill.
Legislative inaction must be more tiring than I realized.
Still, I don't view this month as a cooling off period. If anything, it's time to turn up the heat.
Over the next few weeks, Senators will be holding "town hall meetings" in their states. Last year, these meetings came to define the health care debate. This year, they could help us reshape America's energy policy.
If you are like me and you are still stunned that the Senate refused to pass a bill that would have created nearly 2 million new American jobs, put our nation at the forefront of the clean energy market and helped end our addiction to oil, then go to a town hall meeting and tell your lawmakers what you think.
Tell them that it is in America's best interest to embrace clean energy now.
And while you are at it, please tell them to block attempts by some Senators to weaken the Clean Air Act-the 40-year-old law that has saved hundreds of thousands of lives-in an effort to further delay reductions in global warming pollution.
Some naysayers claim that voting on visionary legislation is a risky proposition when we are this close to an election. They are wrong, and history proves it.
As I wrote in a recent blog post, 13 of the most powerful environmental laws were passed during the fall of an election year or in the lame duck sessions following elections.
We can pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation this fall, but only if we demand it of our lawmakers.
Use this August to make your voices heard. You can find your Senators' schedules by checking their Senate websites, as well as their candidate websites - Republican or Democratic.
Yesterday, the NRDC Action Fund launched a campaign featuring a powerful new ad by renowned environmental activist and celebrated actor, Edward James Olmos. In the video, which you can view here, Olmos explains what makes people - himself included - "locos" when it comes to U.S. energy and environmental policy. Now, as the Senate moves towards a possible debate on energy and climate legislation, we need to let everyone hear Olmos' message.
Hi, I'm Edward James Olmos. They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I guess that's what makes Americans "locos." We keep yelling "drill baby drill" and expecting things to turn out ok. But the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is nothing new. The oil industry has been poisoning our oceans and wilderness for decades. It's time to regain our sanity. America doesn't want more oil disasters. We need safe, clean and renewable energy now. Think about it.
Sadly, Olmos' definition of "insanity" is exactly what we've been doing for decades in this country -- maintaining policies that keep us "addicted" to fossil fuels instead of moving towards a clean, prosperous, and sustainable economy.
As we all know, dirty, outdated energy sources have caused serious harm to our economy, to our national security, and of course - as the horrible Gulf oil disaster illustrates - to our environment. In 2008 alone, the U.S. spent nearly $400 billion, about half the entire U.S. trade deficit, importing foreign oil. Even worse, much of that $400 billion went to countries (and non-state actors) that don't have our best interests at heart.
As if all that's not bad enough, our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels also has resulted in tremendous environmental devastation, ranging from melting polar ice caps to record heat waves to oil-covered pelicans and dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico.
As Edward James Olmos says, it's enough to drive us all "locos."
Fortunately, there's a better way.
If you believe, as we passionately do, that it's time to kick our addiction to the dirty fuels of the past, then please help us get that message out there. Help us air Edward James Olmos' ad on TV in states with U.S. Senators who we believe can be persuaded to vote for comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. If we can convince our politicians to do their jobs and to pass comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation this year, we will be on a path to a brighter, healthier future.
It's been a while since we had to have a real heart-to-heart, the Obama Administration and I, and last time it was because Rahm Emanuel had been a bit snippy toward those of us who are carrying the water for this Administration.
We need to have another one of those conversations today; this time the circumstances are a lot more positive-in fact, if the Administration follows my suggestions here, we have a real chance to put the Democrats on the road to victory, not just this November, but also in 2012.
What I'm proposing will create hundreds of thousands, if not millions of jobs, and it will stimulate millions more as we create a national source of discount electrical power that can be used by business and consumers alike.
Here's the best part: it's no "pie in the sky" promotion I'm offering here; we've already done the same thing before, it's been working out well for almost three quarters of a century...and even better than all that...my idea first pays for itself, and then...it actually makes the Federal Government a profit, forever after.
OIL SPILLS, clean energy initiatives, fears of global warming and a painfully slow economic recovery make for a potent brew as we struggle to find solutions.
California is once again ground zero with its fragile coastal environment and polluted air, decaying highway and water infrastructures, an education system that gets failing grades, runaway deficits, more than 12 percent unemployment, and an economy ravaged by declining revenues, municipal insolvency and government paralysis.
Why either Jerry Brown or his likely opponent, Meg Whitman, would want to run this state is a good question.
Perhaps the best answer is that one of them thinks he knows how, having done so before, and the other is willing to spend any amount of money for the tutorial.
In a foreshadowing of things to come in Washington, where Sen. Barbara Boxer is having trouble rounding up support for a giant cap-and-trade bill opposed by coal-burning states, proponents of a cleaner and healthier environment are looking optimistically toward November's election when Californians will vote on AB 32, which mandates a 25 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
The goal is ambitious and industry forces are mounting an all-out effort to defeat it.
Its passage would be the final hurrah for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who has become perhaps the greenest governor in the nation, startling even the state's powerful environmentalist lobby by announcing his reversal of support for expanded oil drilling off the California coast. But after the disastrous Gulf Coast oil spill, this is plain common sense coupled with smart politics.
Critics of the decision were quick to say it will cost jobs, drive up prices at the pump, and discourage investment in new energy technologies. We have heard that before.
In Marin, the high-decibel battle over the clean energy initiative has yet to play out, with grassroots advocates contending it is essential if we are to stave off the effects of global warming and opponents led by utility colossus Pacific Gas and Electric are equally adamant that it may not do much good at all.
PG&E has been so heavy handed in pushing the "opt out" choice, which permits cities and homeowners to vote against the Marin Energy Authority as their preferred energy provider, that it has been sanctioned by the state Public Utilities Commission for its overly-aggressive marketing.
Caught in the middle of this fractious dialogue are the consumers who must decide whether the financial and administrative risks of what is disarmingly labeled community choice aggregation (read as a municipal takeover of electric power) are preferable to an energy future dependent upon a company with proven methods of delivery and service and little interest in fostering competition.
The two opponents vying for the First District supervisorial seat, Kerry Mazzoni and incumbent Susan Adams, have been drawn into the debate with Adams staunchly in favor of the initiative and Mazzoni expressing skepticism.
Only people living on another planet would dispute the wisdom of wanting the benefits of cleaner and safer air and water, and investing in the necessary technologies to accomplish it. A majority of voters also favored sweeping health care reforms, although that majority was in bitter disagreement over the best approach.
One thing is certain. Earth is a shared living space and the damage to any one of us is damage to all.
Baton Rouge (FNS)-Facing both a massive oil slick from a sunken offshore drilling platform and a second year of declining tourism revenues along the Louisiana Gulf Coast caused by high gas prices, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal today introduced a new tourism promotion that he reports is going to "...make lemons into lemonade".
Jindal, flanked by British Petroleum's Director of Marketing Dick Timoneous and the Executive Director of the Louisiana State Tourism Board, Jenna Talia, announced that the "All The Oil You Can Carry Festival" would officially commence today just east of New Orleans, and last at least through the month of May.
George Skelton has a column today about Prop 16, PG&E's power grab to assure themselves a monopoly. And for the most part, he nails the problem of their logic:
San Francisco-based PG&E is attempting to assure itself a monopoly of current Northern and Central California customers by erecting a practically impenetrable barrier to other electricity providers. ... And the whole exercise is an affront to the original intent of California's century-old ballot initiative system, which was created to protect consumers against powerful special interests. This does the opposite. It protects an interest against unhappy consumers.
PG&E's poison pill for the public is the two-thirds vote requirement. The company is cynically promoting Prop. 16 as a "taxpayers right to vote act." (LA Times)
And that's all well and good there, and really, he gets the message across to voters that they should oppose the measure. So, credit where credit is due to Skelton on that one. But then he continues on, and that's where he misses the problem with the measure:
It has nothing to do with taxes. And people already have the right to vote, at least in a new territory proposed to be served by a public utility.
There's no legal requirement now that customers currently served also give their permission for expansion. And there should be. But it should be by majority rule.
Now, it's a little unclear which vote he wants to require, but I'm putting down right now for good ol' fashioned representative democracy. It's what has made our country great. The problem with forcing votes is just what Skelton outlined a few paragraphs ago. If there is a proposed expansion, PG&E will spend millions to defeat it, while the municipal utility can spend $0.00 on the other side to educate voters.
Community Choice Aggregation, which is what this is about in the case of San Francisco, is simply an option. It doesn't require anybody to join public power, it simply gives ratepayers the option of opting for the public alternative. PG&E simply doesn't want to give voters that choice, so they're trying to lock in their monopoly. Even if that is a simple majority vote, they've shown in the past that they are willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money for every inch of turf. Just look at the case of the proposed Yolo county expansion of SMUD. PG&E spent millions of dollars to defeat that. And, by the hair of their chinny, chin, chin, they were able to beat it down.
Thing is, given a fair fight, PG&E will lose every time. Instead of fair fights, they like to stack the deck in their favor. They spend large amounts of ratepayer dollars or put ridiculous measures on the ballot like Prop 16. Either way, they're going for the jugular of the body politic.
A few days ago, I mentioned that PG&E's little scheme to end any attempts to move in the slightest direction towards public power qualified for the ballot. Basically, the initiative would require a 2/3 vote of the people for any new vaguely public power systems. According to some analysts, this could mean that votes are required for new buildings within public power regions like Sacramento. It's a bad law made worse with poor drafting.
So bad that several editorial boards have already come out to oppose the measure. Now, typically, you usually don't see these endorsements until the campaign has really gotten going, and there's a bit of information from both sides. But from the plain text of the measure, the boards could see right through this little ploy.
Pacific Gas and Electric spent $3.5 million to collect more than a million signatures to qualify what it calls the Taxpayers Right to Vote Act for California's June ballot. The title makes it sound like motherhood and apple pie. It's just the opposite. If voters approve the scam, it will protect PG&E from dissatisfied customers angry about bad service and high costs. (Fresno Bee, 1/20/2010)
The point isn't to protect taxpayers' rights. It's to protect the profits of a monopoly utility - both from ambitious clean-power schemes in San Francisco and from modest annexations in Redding. This is one measure where voters will need to look past the catchy slogan and see who really stands to benefit.(The Redding Record Searchlight 1/16/2010)
It is unusual for The Bee to come out against a ballot measure before the campaign has really started. The PG&E initiative deserves special attention. It's that bad.(Sacramento Bee, 1/192010)
The verdict for progressives, and all Californians, on this one should be clear: Just say no to PG&E's power grab.
We're diving deep into "geek world" today with a story that combines economic hardball, the periodic table of the elements, and a barely noticed provision of the Defense Authorization Act that seeks to break a monopoly which today gives China near-absolute control over the materials that make cell phones, electric cars, wind turbines, and pretty much every other tool of modern life possible.
If we successfully break the monopoly, we'll be able to create millions of new manufacturing jobs in this country-and if we don't, somebody else owns the 21st Century.
Ironically, the global warming we're trying to fight with new green technologies might be an ally in our efforts to make those very same green technologies happen.
There's a revolution in industrial processing going on, rare earths are at the center of it all...and in today's story, the revolution will be televised.
As state Senator Mark DeSaulnier said to me a few weeks ago, on a majority-vote basis, California remains in the vanguard of the country. The Legislature is poised to prove that by the end of the session, if they manage to get to the Governor's desk the most aggressive renewable energy standard in America, with a target of getting 33% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020. Most stakeholders appear to be on board with this standard, including the utilities, who won't reach the current RES goal of 20% by 2010 (Southern California Edison Co. is at 15.5%, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is at 11.9% and San Diego Gas & Electric Co. only at 6.1%, as of last year). They are confident that the transmission grid, helped along by federal stimulus money, will allow them to transfer renewable energy freely enough to reach the 33% standard. The question, posed today by the LA Times, concerns where that energy will come from.
The main argument is over how much of the new green power must be generated within California's borders. Another point of contention is which is more expensive: in-state renewable energy or wind and solar power from facilities elsewhere in the West [...]
Unlike the current 20% renewable energy law for 2010, the two proposed bills with goals for 2020 have enforcement provisions, including financial penalties for failing to meet renewable energy procurement levels.
They also broaden the requirements to include publicly owned utilities, such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
A big sticking point in the debate is how much renewable power the state's utilities are allowed to buy or generate out of state. The current law has no limit.
The utilities favor that, but labor unions and their allies want a provision in pending legislation that at least 80% of the power be generated in California.
Unions and their supporters say that most of the new power plants should be built in state so that California workers could snag most of the new green jobs and other benefits involved. "If the people of Wyoming receive the jobs, the tax revenue and the infrastructure, what benefit are Californians going to get other than higher electric bills?" said Matt Freedman, an attorney with the Utility Reform Network, a ratepayers' group. "The question is, 'Who is going to benefit from the 33% standard?'"
First of all, I can't believe that the 2006 law has no enforcement provisions. At the very least, there has to be some incentive to get the utilities to meet the standard, otherwise, as we're seeing right now, they'll slow-walk it.
To answer the man from the Utility Reform Network who asked, "Who is going to benefit from the 33% standard," the answer is that we all will, both by lower emissions and by setting a marker for other states to follow. Renewable energy is extremely popular, and if California acts boldly to set a high standard, they will see a residual benefit. There's probably a sweet spot in between no limit to out-of-state production and 20%, that can benefit both the environment and job creation in California. Perhaps a small tariff for importing renewable energy could be created to level the playing field.
Regardless, we're very likely to see this precedent-setting standard this year.
The bill numbers are SB 14 (Simitian) and AB 64 (Krekorian).
City Attorney Dennis Herrera has reached an agreement with Mirant to permanently shutter the company's Potrero power plant by the end of 2010, and to secure the Atlanta-based energy giant's unprecedented commitment to join the City in actively pushing for the plant's closure should state or federal energy regulators attempt to delay it. Under terms of the agreement signed by Mirant officials today, the company will also pay at least $1 million to the City to help address pediatric asthma in nearby communities and to initiate other mitigations in neighborhoods adjacent to the fossil-fueled facility. Mirant will pay another $100,000 to the San Francisco City Attorney's Office for legal fees and costs.
The groundbreaking accord follows nearly a decade of often bitterly contentious legal, political and regulatory maneuvering by Herrera, Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, former Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, the S.F. Public Utilities Commission and many other community leaders to finally close the City's last remaining large power plant. Efforts in recent years to speed the closure of the nearly 50-year-old facility have included opposing the renewal of the state permit for its antiquated "once-through" cooling system, and working to install cleaner, municipally-owned replacement generators that had been secured in a 2002 legal settlement to meet state-mandated electricity generation requirements. Earlier this year, Herrera also filed a civil lawsuit against Mirant for violating the City's Unreinforced Masonry Buildings ordinance at the Potrero site.
"This is a major step forward for a San Francisco that will be cleaner, greener and healthier because of what we've achieved today," said Herrera. "Notwithstanding the occasionally unkind words we've exchanged in years past, I must today commend Mirant for its cooperative spirit and forward-thinking leadership. In working with us to forge an agreement that few would have thought possible even a few months ago, Mirant ultimately proved its commitment to being a good neighbor and a willing partner. This is testimony to their hard work as well as ours, and it is vindication for the efforts of all the leaders throughout the years who've worked to close this power plant. I am particularly grateful to Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, former Board President Aaron Peskin, PUC General Manager Ed Harrington, and former PUC General Manager Susan Leal for being such effective partners every step of the way. My own office also lent considerable expertise throughout the case, but I'm especially thankful to Chief Assistant City Attorney Jesse Smith and Energy Team Chief Theresa Mueller for their tireless work."
While this may not seem that huge to those outside of SF, but this is really big. The pollutants being pumped out of this plant have been both controversial and extremely unhealthy. A resolution, if all stakeholders get on board, would be a boon for the City.
Energy independence and a transition to renewable energy are pressing issues impacting our national, environmental, and financial security. Our current economic crisis also presents an unprecedented opportunity to make long-needed changes in our nation's energy policy. We need intelligent, progressive legislation that provides incentives, training, and investment opportunities for a transition to a softer energy path and a more peaceful and productive world.
Fossil fuels kill the economy, the environment, and international security: Nonrenewable energy is bad for the economy, the environment, and international security. Nonrenewable and foreign sources of energy exacerbate our current economic crisis, impacting tens of millions of families, making it harder to get to work, more costly to move goods and operate services, and more expensive to heat and cool our homes and workplaces. Fossil fuel consumption is destroying our environment, contributing to global climate change, soil erosion, barren mountaintops, deforestation, and health-threatening particulate materials in our air and water. Dependence on foreign sources of energy virtually guarantees continued international tensions, tempting policymakers into foreign military interventions that threaten the lives of Americans and others, contributing to international instability and violent extremism.
DiFi was at Livermore for the opening of the Livermore Ignition Facility, which itself is an interesting story that could revolutionize our energy future. In short, it would create a fusion reaction from the firing of a bunch of lasers on a spherical hydrogen clump. In theory, it could also solve our nuclear waste problem. It's all quite fascinating.
But that's not the only thing that grabbed my attention. Carla Marinucci, the Chronicle's politics writer, caught this audio clip on the Governor's site. Check the audio, but Carla helfpully transcribed it:
"I have been around in 15 elections. I have never seen a time when the voters did what they did, in view of what they were told about cuts, in the enormous defeat of these propositions,'' she said. "I can't give you the reason for it, but I can tell you, to me it was astonishing.''
"And what they said is, in so many words, take the cuts, because that's the alternative. And nobody wants them, but people have to understand.''
Frankly, this is simply wrong. What they told the Legislature to do was to do their job. The voters weren't simply saying cut, they were saying we don't want this ridiculous spending cap. But, DiFi just goes ahead and takes the Jarvis bait, hook, line and sinker.
The people did not say anything about cuts. In fact, they spoke out strongly against cuts by rejecting Props 1D and 1E that cut social services for children and the mentally ill, respectively. The people are saying they want a functional government that is responsive, not demanding, of the people.
But apparently, Sen. Feinstein is ok with the cuts to teach the people of California a lesson or something like that. Look, she wouldn't be the only person to say this, I've heard it said by many progressives. The trouble is that it's really tough to teach a lesson to the people who are most impacted by the cuts, children, the disabled, and other disadvantaged Californians. We need revenue. Now. Whether that's a majority vote measure or some other form, these cuts-only budgets simply cannot be all that is left on the table. It simply isn't right to let people die for the sake of a lesson.
UPDATE: Arnold has more cuts planned. This batch includes suspending the number of days that animal shelters have to keep strays, school bus service, and more in-home supportive service cuts. Hope you don't let your dog walk away or have a relative who needs some care...
UPDATE: From the comments, americarocks suggest you Contact DiFi to tell her why you voted NO. Not a bad idea.
The Obama Administration is poised to announce a major deal on tailpipe emissions standards, bringing the whole country under one federal standard that fairly closely appropriates what California passed in 2002 and has been trying to get a waiver from the feds about ever since.
President Obama will announce as early as Tuesday that he will combine California's tough new auto-emissions rules with the existing corporate average fuel economy standard to create a single new national standard, the officials said. As a result, cars and light trucks sold in the United States will be roughly 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016.
The White House would not divulge details, but environmental advocates and industry officials briefed on the program said that the president would grant California's longstanding request that its tailpipe emissions standards be imposed nationally. That request was denied by the Bush administration but has been under review by top Obama administration officials since January.
But Mr. Obama is planning to go further, putting in place new mileage requirements to be administered by the Department of Transportation that would match the stringency of the California program.
Under the new standard, the national fleet mileage rule for cars would be roughly 42 miles a gallon in 2016. Light trucks would have to meet a fleet average of slightly more than 26.2 miles a gallon by 2016.
This is a major victory for California, as well as a step forward for all sides of this debate. Auto companies, who apparently signed off on the deal, can now have certainty about their future production needs. The states can get out of court and provide a better environment for their constituents. And we all can breathe cleaner air while using less oil.
But the hilarious postscript must be highlighted. Politico reports that this deal will be announced tomorrow, with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in attendance. As CapAlert notes, there's just one problem: California has a statewide election tomorrow, and Arnold is not an absentee voter. Yes, the Governor, the head cheerleader and supporter of the special election, might miss out on voting in it (although, if the announcement takes place early enough, he could be reasonably expected to make it home before the polls close at 8pm).
You know Arnold can't resist the lure of the spotlight. And better for him to stand at the side of a popular President than try in vain to rescue a flawed set of ballot measures which have probably already failed, given the 2 million vote-by-mail ballots already cast. It probably appeals to him to leave town on Election Day and hide out in Washington. That's par for the course for him, failing to ever accept responsibility for the damage he's caused.
The race to replace Rep. Ellen Tauscher in Congress received a jolt yesterday with the announcement of Lt. Gov. John Garamendi that he expects to be a candidate for that seat. And just today, Joan Buchanan has decided to enter the race as well. But these are not the only candidates poised to jump into the race. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with Anthony Woods, a young West Point graduate who served two tours as a platoon leader in Iraq. Woods was born in the district on Travis AFB in Fairfield, to a single mother who worked as a housekeeper. He was raised in the area, and after his stint at West Point, he volunteered and took command of two separate platoons that shipped out to Iraq, once in 2004-05 and again in 2005-06, engaging in service for which he received the Bronze Star. Returning to the states, he took graduate studies in public policy at the Kennedy School for Government at Harvard, and in his second year, he entered into a relationship that made him realize the absurdity of the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Tired of shutting down his gay identity and hiding himself, he came out to his commander - "I wasn't going to lie about it anymore" - kicking off a lengthy investigative process that resulted in an honorable discharge (for "moral and professional dereliction of duty") in December 2008. Woods was also forced to pay back his education benefits. (A full bio on Anthony Woods can be found here.)
Here is someone willing to serve his country, able to perform honorably on the battlefield, yet because of his identity as a gay American cannot be a member of the military. The insanity of this official policy has been well-documented around here. What is striking about Woods is that he foregrounds the concept of service instead of the injustice of the policy, and would rather not dwell on that incident but instead find a new way to serve. He is close to making a decision on whether to enter the 10th District race, and on the flip, you can read a paraphrase of the rest of my interview with him.
SB14, which would require utilities to receive 33% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020, passed the state Senate today. This would be a more stringent standard than the federal bill introduced today by Henry Waxman, which called for 25% from renewables by 2025. So this is a very aggressive standard that was championed by Darrell Steinberg.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said the bill, which now goes to the Assembly, would help pave the way to a more environmental friendly future.
"The green economy is the economy of the future," Steinberg said. "The environment and the economy go together."
Mod Squadder and corporate-friendly Sen. Rod Wright, along with Lou Correa, voted no. For Wright, who said he is "concerned that this bill is moving too fast," the vote is particularly inexcusable, as his district is witness to the ravages of greenhouse gas-emitted pollution. The final vote was 21 aye, 16 no. Tony Strickland, who pretended to be an environmentalist during his campaign, predictably took a walk on the vote. What a coward.
Capitol Weekly has more. This is a big win for Sen. Steinberg, and while the bill is certain to be amended (the "cap and trade" style appearance of "renewable energy credits" that utilities can pass to one another to get inside the 33% standard seems ripe for gaming the system), a strong claim on a very progressive priority gives us hope that progressives won't be stiffed for this entire session.
In a related development, Rep. Jerry McNerney introduced three very good energy bills at the federal level, including the Smart Grid Advancement Act, which would develop a smart electrical grid that could help reduce energy use during peak times, the Vehicles for the Future Act, which would build out the electrical infrastructure for plug-in hybrids and EVs, and the GREEN Act, which would provide $100 million in grants for developing career and technical training in green jobs. The three bills are explained here.
