By Jakada Imani
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
We've heard it before - "the green economy is here" and "green jobs are on the way!" At the Ella Baker Center, we put time, energy, and money into building training programs and promoting the idea of the "new," green economy. Just a few years later, the economy crashed and green jobs became fewer and farther between than anticipated.
Now, more than ever, jobs of any kind are hard to find. But a weak economy doesn't make the bad air any less harmful, or the energy bills we pay any more affordable. In a sustainable, healthy economy, people shouldn't have to settle for grey jobs. Fortunately, Jerry Brown has a plan to fight unemployment and put more Californians to work fixing up houses and apartments to reduce energy consumption- the renewal and reform of the Public Goods Charge.
The Governor recently proposed a plan that puts the small surcharge most Californians already see on our monthly electricity bills to good, green use. His plan would direct the Public Goods Charge to fund jobs, projects and research reducing energy consumption, pollution, and our dependence on oil and coal. Set to expire at the end of 2011, the Public Goods Charge fund has been re-worked to invest directly in jobs for our communities and energy savings in our homes. In fact, Governor Brown's plan calls for every dime to be spent maximizing job creation, both immediately and in years to come.
Of this large fund, the lion's share- $250 million a year- is dedicated to energy retrofits of houses and apartments, with a requirement that at least 25% of the money be spent in low-income communities. This money would immediately go to work providing energy efficiency in our neighborhoods, while employing people from our neighborhoods. Many of us literally cannot afford to miss out on this tremendous investment.
California is known for innovation and leadership on economic and environmental issues, and this plan is no exception. The second-largest category of spending, $150 million a year, is to be dedicated to research and development of new technologies and businesses. This includes incentives for home and business owners to install solar power on their roofs. When our community buildings and neighbors' homes become power plants, dollars are kept in the neighborhood while pollution is kept out of the air. It's a true win-win, with the added bonus of creating jobs installing and maintaining these new, green energy sources.
The strength of the Governor's plan is clearly not just "clean energy" but "economic energy," a true example of what's possible when policies connect people most in need of jobs with the work that most needs to get done. Imagine 100 breadwinners employed retrofitting homes, now able to buy their kids school supplies and groceries. At the same time, their hours of work are helping their neighbors live a healthier, more energy-efficient life. Like an electric charge, the money transfers and flows from one source to the next, powering everything in its path.
Too often we are told that we must choose between jobs and the environment. This is a false choice. An economy that promotes the health of the planet as well as their workers is better for everyone. Growing a strong green economy is the best way out of California's unemployment crisis. It is essential for people of color and low-income communities to be a part of that recovery. And an essential first step is to renew the Public Goods Charge.
Join me in calling on our State leadership to act quickly and renew the Public Goods Charge - a great example of a solution to address California's problems of poverty and pollution at the same time.
Union of Concerned Scientists Warns CA Voters about Misleading Slate Mailer and 'Trojan Horse' Attack Against State's Clean Energy Law; Urges Voters to Vote NO on 26
With most voters' attention diverted by the oil industry's efforts to derail the state's landmark clean energy and climate law with Proposition 23, another, less scrutinized oil-industry-funded ballot measure--Proposition 26--also poses a serious threat to the environment and clean energy.
Proposition 26 has received nearly $16 million from Chevron and other big oil companies, as well as alcohol and tobacco interests, to get themselves off the hook from paying for environmental and health damage they cause and shift that burden to taxpayers.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is alerting California voters to beware of misleading 'slate mailers' arriving in their mailboxes just before the November 2 election. UCS strongly urges a 'NO' vote on Prop. 23 and Prop. 26.
"While Prop 23 is a frontal assault on our clean energy law, Prop 26 is more like a Trojan horse," said Dan Kalb, UCS California policy manager. "As deceptive as the Prop 23 campaign has been, the campaign to pass Prop 26 is even more insidious. Not only do the oil and tobacco companies behind Prop 26 hide the fact that it would starve state and local public health, clean air, and clean energy programs, but now they are funding misleading slate mailers that misinform voters about what the pro-environment position really is on Prop 26. The pro-environment position on Prop 26 is a definite NO."
Voters have already begun receiving a for-profit mailer with the headline "Californians Vote Green" recommending votes on Props 25 (no) and 26 (yes) that are the opposite of what the state's leading public health and environmental organizations recommend. UCS and several other leading environmental and consumer groups strongly support Prop. 25 and oppose Prop. 26. "This pay-to-play 'green' mailer sinks to new lows when it comes to false advertising," said Kalb.
(cont.)
By Jakada Imani
Executive Director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
The California Ballot Measure process has become a roulette game for big corporations to gamble with the health of our citizens. Perfect examples of how this plays out are Proposition 26 and Proposition 23, deceptive initiatives bankrolled by major polluters, both would result in more pollution in our state, hurting all of us, but especially endangering low-income communities that suffer disproportionate exposure to toxins. High rates of pollution are to blame for the high rates of asthma, lung disease and cancer in Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino and African American communities.
It's the duty of all Californians to say "No!" to big oil companies and other mega-corporations that seek to distort the truth, and abuse the ballot initiative system with their paid signature gatherers and advertising campaigns as slick and dirty as the oil coating beaches of Louisiana and Florida. It's especially important to for voters from low-income communities to stand up for ourselves, for the lives we save may be our own children's.
A long list of Californians- from politicians to CEOs to actors have come out against Prop 23, brought to you by Texas oil companies Tesoro and Valero. The measure, properly derided as the Dirty Energy Proposition, would repeal California's landmark climate change law.
The quieter, but equally poisonous friend of the Dirty Energy Prop, is Prop 26 being driven forward by Chevron with help from Big Tobacco and Big Alcohol. Knowing that a team's biggest cheerleaders are oil, tobacco, and alcohol should give anyone pause in wondering whose best interests are at the heart of the matter. It's easy to see that profit, rather than people or our planet, would win should these propositions pass.
Proposition 26 is an-anti democratic measure that would protect polluters and purveyors of tobacco and alcohol from paying fees used to undo the harm caused by their products. These companies don't want to pay to clean up their own messes--they expect you and me, the California taxpayer to eat the costs while they pocket the profit. The independent nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office has warned us that Prop 26 would blow another ONE BILLION DOLLAR hole in the state budget.
Prop 26 would require a costly election in advance of any local government action to impose an appropriate fee. Two-thirds of local voters would have to agree to a fee on a company to pay, for example, air pollution mitigation near a chemical plant. The State Legislature would also be prohibited from imposing an appropriate fee, on say whiskey to help pay for alcohol checkpoints, unless 2/3rd of lawmakers in each house agree. Considering the influence of corporate lobbyists, Prop 26 would make a new fee on polluters, tobacco or booze, about as likely as my 5-foot tall grandmother joining the U.S. Olympic basketball team. The same 2/3rds threshold has already crippled the state budget process, leaving California's communities, schools and workforce to suffer.
If big oil and big tobacco doesn't pay--who does? We do, the regular taxpayers. The budget suffers another billions dollar hole in health, education and welfare services, just to protect the profits of the richest corporations in the world.
Proposition 26 is opposed by health and justice organizations including the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and NAACP. We are standing with unions representing teachers, cops, firefighters and nurses, who rightfully worry about adding billion dollars to the state deficit, and the crippling effect on local government services, including health, education, drug treatment, police and fire.
Low-income communities of color, including immigrant communities, are hurt first and worst by pollution, global warming, booze, tobacco and gun selling. Voting No on Prop 23 ensures that California continues its leadership in clean air, climate action and green job creation while a No on 26 protects our right to make companies pay for poisoning our people or our planet.
If you go to the website for the US Chamber of Commerce (USCOC), America's "voice of business" that claims to represent the interests of over 3 million businesses, it feels like you've found the site for a right wing advocacy group. There are clips from FOX News (that aren't making fun of them), attacks on healthcare and financial regulatory reform, and links to Wall Street Journal op-eds claiming that America has more to fear from the political influence of labor unions than from corporations with annual profits in the billions. The implication is clear -- American businesses have right wing values.
However, this assertion was challenged in 2009 when USCOC announced its opposition to attempts by the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. USCOC said that doing so would "strangle the economy", called for a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" as if human-caused climate change was yet to be proven, and threatened to sue the EPA if it decided to act without holding the trial. In response, Nike resigned from USCOC's board of directors, and major companies like Apple, Pacific Gas and Electric, PNM Resources and Exelon left USCOC completely.
It turns out that when it comes to climate change, US businesses aren't so conservative after all. That's why a group like American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE) is so important. And if you own a business and believe the US should be doing more to fight climate change and help support the clean energy economy (which is creating jobs at 2.5 times the rate as the rest of the economy), you should seriously consider joining ABCE.
ABCE represents over 2,500 businesses of all shapes and sizes, including big companies like Gap Inc. and Warner Music Group as well as small local businesses from Al's Painting in Ann Arbor, MI to Zoey's Pizza in Manchester, NH. You don't need to be a business that focuses on green products or services to join -- all are welcome. There are no fees or dues to pay, no meetings to attend, no further obligations, and ABCE will not engage in any lobbying on your behalf. You don't need to resign from any other business coalitions. All you have to do to join is visit ABCE's website and enter some basic information about your business.
That's it. You're done. But you will have done something incredibly important.
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.
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.
As you all know, I and other members on the MomsRising.org team have been fervently working to pass a bill in California that would help eliminate the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in plastic baby and toddler products like bottles and sippy cups. I thought I would let you know how the vote went on Friday.
It had already passed the Senate and was favored by the Assembly 35-32. Unfortunately, it did not garner the 41 votes necessary to clear the Assembly. Here is how individual Assemblymembers voted.
(A post from Mayor Newsom. As a reminder, elected officials are encouraged to post on Calitics; we'll do our best to promote them to the front page promptly. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Every day more San Francisco residents and businesses are signing up for two San Francisco programs that will cut monthly utility bills and help the City meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals. One is SF Energy Watch, which provides technical assistance and financial incentives that pays over half the cost of energy efficiency upgrades to commercial and multifamily properties. The other is GoSolarSF, which, when combined with federal tax credits and state incentives, can reduce the cost of installing a residential solar power system by more than 50 percent.
Edited by Brian for space. See the flip for the rest of the post.
A groundbreaking new poll released today by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights finds that California voters strongly support public investments to create green jobs and prepare people to work in fields that improve the environment. The results lend timely backing to legislation just introduced by Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg that would invest $5 billion in funding for education and training to prepare students and workers for green careers.
(Poll findings can be found here: Ella Baker Center Green Jobs Poll (http://www.ellabakercenter.org//?p=gcjc_green_jobs_poll).
Oakland-based Ella Baker Center commissioned a poll of 602 likely voters in California to test public opinion about "green jobs." Of those polled, 80% said that it was either extremely or moderately important "to invest in creating green-collar jobs." Steinberg's SB 675 -- The Clean Technology and Renewable Energy Job Training, Career Technical Education and Dropout Prevention Act -- would provide grants to build new schools and training facilities, upgrade existing ones, or purchase equipment to provide students and workers with the skills to succeed in green careers.
"This initiative will prepare Californians for our state's clean energy future, including disadvantaged Californians who may not otherwise have pathways into good, green careers," said Ian Kim, director of the Ella Baker Center's Green-Collar Jobs Campaign.
Among the poll's findings:
• Voters overwhelmingly support investing in green-collar jobs. 80% of voters said that it was extremely or moderately important to invest in green jobs immediately. Nearly three in four said they would support fast-tracked investments in solar, wind, and other clean energy projects, and tax breaks for small businesses that create green jobs.
• Voters broadly support green jobs training and green vocational programs as a tool to provide new opportunities for current and future workers. Nearly four in five voters said they would support providing green-collar job training for veterans and workers who have recently lost their jobs. Nearly three in four said they would support green vocational education programs in middle schools, high schools, and community colleges that prepare students for green-collar jobs.
• Voters are willing to pay for investment in green-collar jobs. Investing in green-collar jobs is so important to voters that they are willing to pass tax increases in order to fund it. An overwhelming 72% support a small increase on the income tax of millionaires; more than two-thirds support taxing oil company profits; and a strong majority of voters support taxing sources of pollution that cause global warming.
Officials from David Binder Research who conducted the survey believe the numbers signify a cultural shift in the values of Californian voters. "Survey results show that the current challenges facing the economy and the environment create a perfect storm of support for immediate investment in green-collar jobs," said analyst Seiji Carpenter.
A new coalition, the Green Jobs Working Group, was recently convened to support bills like Steinberg's SB 675. This cross-sector alliance of labor, social justice, and environmental organizations is comprised of the following members: California Apollo Alliance, California Labor Federation, California State Building and Construction Trades Council, Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club California.
"Senator Steinberg should be commended for calling for bold investments in green infrastructure and career technical education when California needs them the most," said Phil Angelides, Chairman of the Apollo Alliance, which has been at the forefront of national, state, and local advocacy efforts to build a clean energy economy.
The focus in SB 675 on partnerships between educational institutions, apprenticeship programs, and businesses is particularly attractive to organized labor, which could see opportunities for new jobs in construction, energy efficiency retrofits, and renewable energy. "In the building trades, we have long understood that protecting the environment, and building a strong economy that provides good jobs, go hand in hand," said President Bob Balgenorth, State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO. "Building trades unions and their workers look forward to working with Senate President Pro Tem Steinberg to move this groundbreaking legislation forward."
The Ella Baker Center is an anchor organization of the Oakland Apollo Alliance, a coalition that helped create the Oakland Green Jobs Corps project. Part social enterprise, part think-tank, and part advocacy arm, the Ella Baker Center's Green-Collar Jobs Campaign works for a green economy in California that is strong enough to lift people out of poverty.
For more information, visit http://www.ellabakercenter.org/ For poll results please click here, California Green Jobs Poll (http://www.ellabakercenter.org//?p=gcjc_green_jobs_poll)
Al Norman's got an interesting piece on the pace of Walmart growth, over at Huffington Post:
Wal-Mart holds a Wall St. analyst's meeting every October---right before Halloween---to announce its growth projection plans for the year. Wal-Mart opponents applauded the company's announcement this week that it would continue to slow down the production of new stores.
Even the Bentonville Behemoth's cheering section, aka the Murdoch Street Journal, notes this trend in financial-speak:
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) sees fiscal-year capital spending at the low end of its reduced expectations and said such expenditures might not increase next year. The retail giant continues to ratchet back its once-breakneck growth and focus on nurturing existing stores.
Disclaimer: I do some work for the No on H campaign. But my views on the issue were decided long before I took the job.
There's no denying that people want to see Good Things happen in San Francisco, and around the country, when it comes to global warming. People have responded to Vice President Gore's film, and want to do the right thing. So it's a bit disturbing when people's good intentions are manipulated by politicians, as they are with the so-called "Clean Energy Act" (aka Measure H) in San Francisco.
The measure claims simply to be about "clean energy" sources for San Francisco. But once you read the measure, you find out two things. It's not really about encouraging the use of clean energy sources for San Francisco residents - it's about a multi-billion dollar take over of a private utility by the City of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors. But more importantly, the measure would actually replace enforceable state regulations with regards to clean energy, and allow a City-run utility to use any power source - clean or not - so long as it's "non nuclear."
Yes, you read that right. The so-called "Clean Energy Act" has two loopholes large enough to drive a fleet of panda-burning Hummers through that allow this to happen. First, publicly owned utilities are EXEMPT from the strict regulations that will ensure private power companies will adhere to rules that require clean energy sources. So while PG and E, a company strictly regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, must comply with these rules, a City-run system will not.
Most Californians see San Francisco as a center of environmental activism. But the renewed fight over public power on the November ballot in San Francisco is already laying bare the fault line between environmentalists and public power advocates.
For several years, advocates of Public Power like Supervisor Aaron Peskin and Bevan Dufty have being pushing to build three polluting power plants near Potrero Hill, an inner city neighborhood that has been highly-impacted by industrial pollution.
But a new study just released by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission shows that their plan to build power plants would be nearly twice as polluting as a proposal supported by most environmentalists who want to retrofit the existing plants with cleaner facilities as a bridge to complete phase-out of the fossil-fuel generation in San Francisco.
(Rep. Solis for President! Ok, maybe it's too late for that. How about Governor? - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Tomorrow I'm hosting a forum on Global Warming at Cal State LA from 9am-3pm where I will bring together environmentalists, labor unions, small businesses, cities, schools and community residents to discuss the local challenges and opportunities presented by climate change. Speakers will include Assemblywoman Fran Pavley, Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster and Mary Nichols, Chair of the California Air Resources Board.
EDIT by Brian: See the extended for more details on what sounds like a really cool event.
(Unfortunately, the two-party system dominates. A Green pulling votes could hand the election to a scary conservative, such as McClintock. - promoted by SFBrianCL)
So, we are holding a press conference tomorrow morning with Rep. Barbara Lee (D, CA-09). We are going to highlight the importance of supporting the Democrat in a close race where a Green is running.
Especially when that Democrat has a Progressive message and agenda, such as John Garamendi and Debra Bowen.
This is late notice, but I wanted to get the message out. We would like there to be as big a show of support as we can get. Unfortunately, it is being held during business hours, so that will be a challenge. It is being held at 9:30 tomorrow morning, but if you can make it please try and be there at 9:00AM to help set up.
The location is in Richmond, CA at 3431 D Macdonald Ave (at 35th). This is our West Contra Costa County UDC campaign HQ.
