Scheme comes out of AB32, the landmark climate change bill
by Brian Leubitz
In Washington, Congress is twiddling its thumbs as they debate what science stopped debating years ago. Rather than aggresively taking on the environmental challenges of our lifetime and building a new sustainable economy, we are pretending the problems don't exist. Sure, we apparently care about the budget deficit that we are handing future generations, but a livable planet is apparently a luxury that we don't care to pass on.
But California, as they say, is different. We passed AB32, with a Republican Governor, yet. And today, we have a real system to put in place:
California has cap & trade - or will once the program starts ramping up next year. Today's approval by the state's Air Resources Board was described by chair Mary Nichols as like "moving a large army a few feet in one direction."
The objective that "army" is marching - or shuffling - toward is, of course, the fulfillment of California's goal to roll back greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the end of this decade. With at least a semi-intentional pun, Nichols calls cap & trade the "capstone" of that effort, although the program is expected to produce at most, 20% of the hoped-for reductions in carbon emissions. The rest will come from other measures either lumped under or related to the state's Global Warming Solutions Act, more widely known as AB 32.
Those other measures include stricter standards for tailpipe emissions, a "low-carbon fuels standard" (still being worked on), and the ambitious-but-attainable goal to get a third of the state's electricity from renewable energy sources, also by 2020. (KQED Climate Change Blog)
Across California, cities and counties are actually doing something about climate change. In fact, San Francisco recently announced that the City has reduced carbon emissions levels 12 percent below 1990 levels.
There is a lot more hard work to come, but it is really, really good to see this unanimous vote on the cap and trade system.
In a time when Lester Brown is writing about a World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse it seems that the political forces in California make for strange reading. Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose overall environmental polices were as destructive as any CA governor, made an impassioned speech this week on the need for strong action on climate change. It may be the only environmental issue that he got right.
At the same time, Representative Jim Costa was voting with the Republicans to continue subsides to the petroleum industry... subsidies that cost the US Taxpayers Billions a year. It is yet one more piece of evidence that cutting the federal budget is not really a goal, but rather a question of whose ox is going to be gored. In this case, Republicans in Congress are making sure that their ox is protected.
With the belated victory of Kamala Harris as Attorney General, the full results of the 2010 election are in for California. There many things that progressives can be proud of - a sweep of statewide offices, picking up another Assembly seat, defeating prop 23 and passing prop 25. On the other hand, there are also some major disappointments - the defeat of prop 19 (marijuana legalization), the defeat of prop 21 (a VLF to fund the state parks), the defeat of prop 24 (rolling back corporate tax breaks), and the passage of prop 26 (2/3rds requirement for fees). Prop 26 especially complicates what this victory means for California.
Indeed, our situation is a lot like the national picture after the 2008 elections - we have an executive who straddles the line between the left and right wings of the Democratic Party, a big legislative majority, but not the ability to break the fiscal deadlock and really be able to govern our state.
Even more embarrassing is the fact that their entire campaign is based on a falsehood. While the Yes on 23 campaign claims that the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 is harmful to the economy, they've got it completely backward: clean energy solutions that help solve the climate crisis are actually beneficial to California's economy. To help them out, the Climate Protection Action Fund has developed some new websites the Yes on Prop 23 campaign may want to consider directing their supporters to:
The new Yes on Prop. 23 sites read, "This is really embarrassing. We've just realized that Prop. 23 is a bad idea. It turns out you can solve the climate crisis and create jobs at the same time."
A screenshot of the content on the sites is below, but you really should visit one of the Yes on Prop. 23 sites to see for yourself:
If you walk through the heart of Times Square today and look up at the 520 sq. ft. CBS superscreen on 42nd St., you're going to be introduced to the largest oil company you've never heard of: Koch Industries.
Governor Schwarzenegger and Meg Whitman aren't really seen around town too often. Whitman can't seem to get far enough from Arnold, and with his record, who would blame her. Yet, as Meg Whitman attempts to make California into Texas, Governor Schwarzenegger is lashing out at the terrible Texas two, Valero and Tesoro, who have been funding Prop 23's effort to kill California's regulation of greenhouse gas pollution.
Schwarzenegger, speaking before several hundred people at the Commonwealth Club in Santa Clara, said the proponents of Prop. 23 are attempting to subvert the democratic process using scare tactics. He likened the campaign to a shell game hiding what he said was the real purpose: "self-serving greed."
"They are creating a shell argument that they are doing this to protect jobs," the governor said. "Does anybody really believe they are doing this out of the goodness of their black oil hearts - spending millions and millions of dollars to save jobs?"
Schwarzenegger said AB32, which he signed into law in 2006, will create jobs by allowing California to establish a "green economy" featuring solar energy, hydrogen power, bio-energy and a renewable electricity standard that will provide "the seed money for the world's energy revolution."
The only job losses or costs, he said, would be in polluting industries like Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp., both of which have refineries in California that climate experts say are sources of greenhouse gas emissions.(SacBee)
The tone of Schwarzenegger's attacks were as surprising as anything else, so it is worth watching the Olbermann clip up top to here the audio of the speech. He puts the lie to the notion that Prop 23 is going to "save a million jobs."
It is striking that Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has attempted to throw the state off the cliff through his shock doctrine budget techniques. But even for him, this is a bridge too far.
Now that Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has announced her opposition on Proposition 23, this dirty energy proposition stands as the main issue that she and the Democratic candidate Jerry Brown agree on. While Whitman's stance against Proposition 23 is good news for California, jobs and our strong clean air and health standards, it is troubling that she coupled her technical opposition while simultaneously announcing her intent to suspend AB 32 for at least a year if elected Governor. Her position sounds like she wants it both ways. Delaying AB 32 would throw a monkey wrench into the implementation of our clean energy polices, and significantly hamper the transition of the state - indeed, the nation - to a clean energy economy.
Sponsored by out-of-state oil interests, Proposition 23 would wreak havoc with implementation of AB 32, our country's only economy-wide clean energy law, an initiative that is creating thousands of cleantech sector jobs, stimulating research in clean energy and alternative fuels, and cutting the state's emissions of greenhouse gases. Proposition 23 would keep us addicted to dirty fuels, kill jobs and derail California's efforts to lead the global push to a high tech, clean energy economy.
While California's Democrats and Republicans may disagree on many points, they have come together over the years to support state leadership on one issue: clean energy. Support for strong environmental regulation and an economy founded on clean technologies and sustainable energy sources is broad-based.
The bipartisan opposition to Proposition 23 is not an anomaly. Clean energy in particular has long been a priority for the state's electorate and lawmakers. In 1974, the California Energy Commission was established by the state legislature and then-Governor Ronald Reagan. Among the Commission's early accomplishments were setting energy efficiency benchmarks for new buildings and appliances, standards which have kept California's per capita electricity consumption flat for 30 years, saving residents billions of dollars on their energy bills.
In subsequent decades, California built on this foundation, establishing Renewable Portfolio Standards that have minimized electricity generation from fossil fuels. Bipartisan efforts also passed bills such as SB 375 in 2008, which sets regional targets to reduce global warming pollution from cars and light trucks and make community resources and energy use more sustainable. Just this year there was strong bipartisan agreement on SB 77, a bill that funds voluntary energy retrofits to residential and commercial property, providing for a projected 10,500 jobs.
And we shouldn't forget that bipartisan support for clean energy and environmental protection is part of our national tradition. The Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act of 1972, two of the seminal legislative efforts on any subject in the past 30 years, could not have passed without the support of lawmakers from both parties.
AB 32 creates a stable policy environment that attracts billions of dollars in venture capital and cutting-edge businesses to the state and we need a reliable policy roadmap. We need a commitment to a clean environment and sustainable energy that transcends party lines. This is an issue that speaks to the American ethos - to the American Dream. It is about security, innovation, entrepreneurship, and leaving our children a world that is better than the one we inhabit.
As summer turns to fall and hopes for federal climate action fade, all eyes are turned to California - but not for the gubernatorial or senate races. Those are important surely, but something else has riveted the nation's attention: Proposition 23. In the past week, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have published major news stories on this initiative, and the Times ran an editorial this week opposing its passage and highlighting its national significance. The Los Angeles Times has devoted regular coverage to Proposition 23 since it was slated for the November ballot.
Why all the hoopla? Because Proposition 23 is a bald-faced attempt by out-of-state oil refiners to quash AB 32, California's landmark climate bill. In the four short years since it was enacted, AB 32 has sent a clear market signal that has attracted billions of dollars in investments, generated thousands of jobs and put California on the path of cutting our global warming pollution. George Shultz, the former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan has joined with NRDC and others to co-chair the No on 23 campaign. He noted in this week's New York Times editorial that AB 32 has created an "outburst" of venture capital investment and high tech innovation in the Golden State.
If we don't stop Proposition 23, it will affect more than California. AB 32 is a game changer - and the same can be said of Proposition 23. They promise two very different futures. Implementation of AB 32 will continue California's environmental legacy as a national and world leader in both the development of clean energy and combating global warming. It is a giant step forward. But if AB 32 is a great step forward, Proposition 23 is a Brobdingnagian step back. It keeps California stuck on fossil fuels, and assures laggard status in the race for the new technologies that will drive the world economy in the coming century. In the recent New York Times front page news story, Gene Karpinksi, the president of the League of Conservation Voters, called Proposition 23 "...by far the single most important ballot measure to date testing public support for... a clean energy economy."
So as we get to crunch time (voting starts early on the west coast by absentee ballots arriving as early as October 4th), Californians will be voting for more than candidates and measures. Proposition 23 is a referendum on just who we are as a people - confident of today and the future or afraid to let go of the past. Make no mistake: regardless of how Californians vote, there will be winners and losers in the clean tech race. The New York Times editorial expressed this eloquently:
"Who wins if (AB 32) is repudiated? The Koch Brothers, maybe, but the biggest winners will be the Chinese, who already are moving briskly ahead in the clean technology race. And the losers? The people of California, surely. But the biggest loser will be the planet."
Jerry Sanders isn't always the right-wing's favorite. He testified against Prop 8, and is generally a little bit too moderate for extremism that is the bulk of the Right today. Now, to call him a moderate is to pretty much ignore his record in San Diego. Perhaps he's towards the middle of the California GOP, but really, is that saying all that much?
At any rate, the big news is that Sanders has now announced that he is opposing Prop 23, the dirty energy proposition that would turn back the clock on California's landmark regulation of greenhouse gas pollution.
"The clean-tech sector is booming in San Diego," Sanders said in a release from the No on 23 campaign. "These companies have moved to San Diego because they stand to thrive and prosper as the state seeks to meet its greenhouse-gas standards over the next few decades.
"Proposition 23 would throw these businesses into chaos by eliminating those greenhouse-gas standards. It would also eliminate a powerful incentive for other clean-tech companies to relocate or expand here." (SD U-T)
And this is the reason that you are seeing many folks who usually line up on the other side opposing Prop 23. It represents a tremendous opportunity for California to be a leader in green technology. Rather than being a "job killer" as Carly Fiorina alleges, our regulation of greenhouse gas pollution is a real win-win.
The Sacramento Bee reported yesterday that "BP, the energy giant responsible for the largest offshore oil spill in history, helped develop [California's] framework for teaching more than 6 million students about the environment."
That's right; the same people who brought you the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster are helping to shape the education of millions of students. In fact, the environmental education curriculum will be used in "kindergarten through 12th-grade classes in more than 1,000 school districts statewide."
The thought of BP - or any big oil company - playing a role in designing education on environmental issues makes me very nervous. In California, we've got Texas oil companies spending millions of dollars trying to kill our landmark clean energy and climate law. That's bad enough; we certainly don't need a British oil company writing our kids' education materials.
Dollie Forney, a mother of three from San Jose said, "This is outrageous. Now our schools and officials are so cash-strapped and unimaginative and desperate we are allowing Big Oil to write our children's curriculum? "
The fact is, over the years, BP has rightly earned the title of having "the worst safety and environmental record of any oil company operating in America." Of course, that's not much of an honor, especially when you consider how BP came by its miserable environmental reputation. This includes being slapped with "the two largest fines in OSHA history -- $87.43 million and $21.36 million -- for willful negligence that led to the deaths of 15 workers and injured 170 others in a March 2005 refinery explosion in Texas." BP also "agreed to pay a $50 million fine and plead guilty to a felony violation of the Clean Air Act, and was fined "a total of $21 million for manipulating the California electricity market, Enron-style."
It's not a pretty picture. All of which raises the question, why would anyone even think of giving this company a say in designing education materials on the environment, of all topics? As Lisa Graves of the Center for Media and Democracy says, "I'd hate to see how a section in future textbooks mentioning the BP oil spill will look."
Originally posted on The MarkUp. This is the fourteenth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
After the Gold Rush, but before Hollywood and the Silicon Valley, California's Central Valley became one of the most prosperous agricultural areas in the world. Recent water shortages have challenged this legacy; however, fruit, vegetable and particularly cotton, remain the driving force in the region's economy. The Central Valley may be undergoing a demographic shift of late, but it's not due to agriculture's decline - it's because high home prices in the Bay Area are driving middle-income workers to Tracy and Stockton. The 11th Congressional District, which includes much of this area as well as some Bay Area suburbs and areas further south, is historically conservative. And, while the region remains the most Republican part of the Bay Area that is not saying very much. Currently, Democrat Jerry McNerney represents the 11th district in the U.S. House.
Rep. McNerney came into office in 2006 after defeating arch anti-environment Republican Richard Pombo. At the time, Pombo was a seven-term incumbent with a daunting campaign war-chest, and the number one target of the environmental community. As chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, Pombo spearheaded unsuccessful efforts to weaken the Endangered Species Act, drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling. In stark contrast, McNerney was a renewable energy consultant and entrepreneur who made clean energy the signature issue of his campaign. Environmental groups, like Defenders of Wildlife, campaigned fervently on McNerney's behalf, and his election over Pombo remains one of our community's signature victories of the past decade.
Not surprisingly given this background, McNerney has been a champion for the environment during his first two terms in Congress. According to the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) he has rarely missed an opportunity to take the environmental vote on key issues, scoring a 93% in the last session of Congress. In endorsing his current reelection bid, LCV President Gene Karpinski said that McNerney "has been an invaluable leader in championing clean energy jobs and protecting our natural treasures... As a wind energy engineer and father of an Air Force veteran, Congressman McNerney knows from experience how important clean energy is to our economy and our national security."
Unlike Rep. McNerney, who voted in favor of the historic American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) - the first climate bill to pass a chamber of Congress - his opponent this November, David Harmer, thinks, "global warming is more a religion than a science." And in April, Harmer told a tea party rally, absurdly, that climate legislation would enable the government to regulate every time they exhale. With Harmer misrepresenting both the unassailable science of global warming and reasonable solutions like ACES, you have to wonder if he'd be another Pombo if he ever got to Congress.
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
Meg Whitman has made it abundantly clear that her campaign is tightly focused on a few key area - one of them being jobs and the economy. There is no doubt that AB 32 is a job-killer. Whether she is the next Governor of California or not, our state will be better positioned to come out of this recession is AB 32 is mothballed until the economy is humming - which will likely take a lot longer than the next Governor's ability to temporarily suspend AB 32's draconian regulations for just a year.
First, I welcome this. I think campaigns should be about ideas. And in this case, Jerry Brown is strongly opposing Prop 23. Meg Whitman, well, like all other areas, she's nowhere to be seen. Instead, she airs another million of TV and pretends that she is owed something. Let's have a real debate, and see Whitman take a strong position one way or the other.
Of course, this being a conservative discussion, you have to toss in some willful ignorance to have a real party. Besides the throwaway use of "Democrat Party", (I get it, very cute, Jon.) you have a heaping helping of climate denial:
There is certainly a vibrant debate taking place in the scientific community about whether or not changing temperature around the globe are tied to actions of people on the planet, or possibly part of a large, epic cycle of atmospheric change that is naturally caused.
To that, well, the quick response is no, there isn't a vibrant debate. Ignorance does not make a debate vibrant. Study after study after study show that humans are contributing to climate change, trying to come up with some false dichotomy only distracts us from finding long-term solutions.
Whitman has been skating along on her vagueness for too long. Whichever way she chooses to come down on Prop 23, she should give the voters a sense of who she really is. As of right now, all we have is a few snippets from 30 second spots.
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.
Sure, you might be rocking your Boycott Valero bumper sticker, but have you thought about who this particular oil company is? Or Tesoro, the other big Texas oil company funding AB 32 greenhouse gas pollution regulations? Well, as the Ella Baker Center found out as they did some digging, they are a pair of companies that has consistently and repeatedly trashed the environment. Some examples:
On July 26, Tesoro settled with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to settle 44 air quality violations that included excessive releases of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and ammonia. The company agreed to pay the district $366,375. In 2008, it paid $1.5 million to settle air quality violations in Martinez.
Valero was cited earlier this year. On June 17, Valero released hydrocarbon, hydrogen sulfide gas and coke material into the atmosphere from its coker unit in Benicia. Four refinery employees were reportedly injured, and staff reported numerous air quality violations associated with the incident. (CalWatch)
Of, course there is a lot more, and you can find the details in the report (also available over the flip). Both of these companies are trying to exploit the initiative system to shut down critical long-term planning for our environment for their own short term gain.
But the market will correct for that, right? Well, not so much. This is a classic market failure. Companies are in no way forced to pay for their emissions, so neither their products nor their inputs are properly priced. And they push for less regulation because their management is hung up on short-term share price, rather than the long-term stability of the company. After all, it's "rational" for the current leadership to do so because they won't be there when the house of cards all falls down.
Take while the taking's good, and leave the mess for the next sucker. But, with Prop 16, California voters told the corporate world that while our initiative system can be bent, it isn't completely broken yet. No matter how much you spend, you can't win with money alone.
UPDATE: I've added a graph of the funding for Prop 23. As you can see, the bulk of the money has come from out of state oil companies trying to exploit our initiative system for their own short-sighted gain. Click the image for a higher resolution version.
I've admitted it in the past, and I will continue to be open and honest about who I am. I am comfortable in who I am, and how I have become the person that I am.
I grew up in Texas.
As I grew up, I constantly saw these commercials with different celebrities saying/singing don't mess with Texas. And while it's pretty hard to argue with Stevie Ray Vaughn and the general anti-littering message, it isn't quite so difficult to call them out on their political machinations. Since the past election, Texas Governor Rick Perry has been in the spotlight quite a bit. Not a big surprise, considering he discussed the idea of secession approvingly.
But, I guess it's cool when Texas messes with California. Because apparently the Texas oil companies think that they can buy the elimination of AB 32's historic regulation of greenhouse gas pollution. Today, Valero, of boycottvalero.com fame, announced another $3 million for the Yes on Prop 23 campaign.
Valero Energy Corp. dropped another $3 million into the Proposition 23 campaign, according to campaign finance filings reported Friday to the Secretary of State.
The Texas-based oil company has contributed more than $4 million to the initiative, which would suspend California's landmark greenhouse gas emissions reduction law until the state unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. Tesoro Corp., another oil company based in Texas, has also contributed more than $500,000 to the campaign.(SacBee)
Prop 23 would essentially end California's regulation of greenhouse gases and put us back to square one. Instead of being a nationwide leader, we would be back waiting for the federal government to act. (And yeah, that 5.5% unemployment is virtually unobtainable, so Prop 23 would end AB 32 for all intents and purposes.)
This is absolutely the wrong way to go for California. Just while we are building up our green economy, we cannot turn our back on one of the few growth industries in our state. If Texas wants to continue on the way of the dinosaur and fossil fuel, that is for Texas to Decide.
But in California, we value our environment, and all the millions that Valero has poured in will not change that.
Just when you thought the U.S. Senate couldn't do any less for clean energy and the environment than it's (not) done so far, we now face the real possibility of what would amount to a "stop-work order" on the 40-year-old, wildly successful (e.g., studies finding benefits outweighing costs at a 40:1 ratio), Clean Air Act.
That's right: believe it or not, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is moving ahead with a sequel to Sen. Lisa Murkowski's nefarious attempt, earlier this summer, to gut the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s power to protect the public health from dangerous pollutants, including harmful greenhouse gases. Just as bad, Rockefeller's proposal would keep America addicted to oil and other old, polluting energy technologies, while delaying or derailing our switch to a clean, prosperous energy economy.
Essentially, what Rockefeller is proposing would tell the EPA – at least for two years, although we know that justice delayed is often justice denied! - that it has to be asleep at the switch, that it must not hold polluters accountable, that it must look the other way whole Big Oil and Big Coal trash the environment. Is that the lesson the Senate learned from the Gulf of Mexico disaster? Really?
Fortunately, not everyone is so clueless as the U.S. Senate appears to be right now. For instance, in yesterday's Politico, two energy investors – one Democrat, one Republican – explained what's at stake in clear, compelling language.
We are not experts in vote counting or horse trading. But we do know how investors and markets will respond if Congress ultimately fails to put a market-based price on carbon. The response from capital will be brutal: Money will flow to places like China, Europe and India — and U.S. jobs will go with it.
The path to creating more U.S. jobs is simple: Pass legislation that eliminates uncertainty and levels the playing field, and investors will fund projects that create good jobs here at home. Rules bring certainty, certainty spurs investment, and investment creates jobs.
[...]
Take it from investors: Removing the uncertainty, and taking a more thoughtful approach to energy policy by putting a market price on carbon, can bring home new investments and jobs — and ensure that America leads the clean energy economy.
Instead, it now looks like the Senate not only won't be moving us forwards, but instead will be trying to move us significantly – and disastrously - backwards. What's truly stunning about this possibility is that, right now, the science of climate change is clearer and more disturbing than ever. Heat waves are getting worse, the ice caps are shrinking faster than ever, and scientists are telling us that the world is setting new temperature records almost every month, every year, and every decade. In addition, the results of our insatiable thirst for fossil fuels were demonstrated starkly and tragically, both in a West Virginia coal mine as well as in the Gulf of Mexico, on TV screens all across America in recent months. As if all this isn't bad enough, we also could run out of water.
The American people know this situation can't go on. In fact, recent polls show large majorities supporting an energy bill that would "[l]imit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy...by charging energy companies for carbon pollution in electricity or fuels like gas." In other words, this is a case where good policy – limiting greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing our national security, safeguarding public health, jumpstarting a clean energy revolution – and good politics – strong poll results for doing just that - appear to align. Yet, the U.S. Senate appears ready to ignore both good policy and good politics, and actually move to make matters worse by gutting the EPA and letting polluters like BP off the hook.
Don’t let them do it. Call your Senators right now and tell them "hell no" to the "Let Polluters Pollute with Impunity Act." Also, while you’re at it, call the White House and tell President Obama that, if such a measure reaches his desk, he will veto it – no ifs, ands, or buts.
Take action today for a cleaner, stronger, and more sustainable future. Join NRDC Action Fund on Facebook and Twitter and stay up-to-date on the latest environmental issues and actions you can take to help protect our planet.
The climate bill blame game has begun. When I first started writing this post about the so-called death of the climate bill, I literally pointed the finger at just about everyone, including myself. The anger poured out, and I was frank in my assessment as well as unforgiving in the motives behind this latest setback.
After I was done with my self-loathing tantrum, the kids ran in the door from camp and I was swept up in the lovely reality of my family's banter. It is summer, so the pace in our home is a bit more relaxed in the evening. We aren't quite as quick to rush through dinner, toss the kids in a bath, and then march them off to bed. Ice cream and extra cuddles are relished, and I am reminded each year at this time why I do this job.
Later, after progeny were tucked in, I went back to my draft blog post to spruce it up. I reread my rage, disappointment, and irrational ramblings and was embarrassed. And I asked myself "What good is all this blame going to do?"
At the end of the day, it is my kids - and your kids - who lose when we implode. If you think kids have a lot to say about their parents now on Dr. Phil, can you imagine what our children will say in 50 years should we fail to get our act together?
The country should be ready for this. The facts are on our side. As we witness the worst industry-caused environmental catastrophe in our history, the worst coal mining disaster in 40 years, and sweat through the hottest first 6 months of any year on record, it is clear that there's never been a more urgent time to move forward with a smart clean energy and climate plan.
Unfortunately, the politicians just aren't there. At every juncture during this debate, a minority, led by the Republican leadership and supported by a few impressionable (I might say pathetic) Democrats, has obstructed the opportunity to solve America's energy problems, preferring to leave the worst polluters and the big petro-dictators in control of our energy policy, while tax-payers are forced to pay for their messes.
Oopsy... there goes that blame again. Let's focus on what we can do next.
Hope is not lost. Of course, the closer we get to the midterm elections, the more challenging passing a bill becomes. Still, it's not impossible. In fact, the Senate has passed almost every single bedrock environmental law in the fall of an election year or in the "lame duck" session following an election. Here are just a few examples:
o Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) - 1996 Amendments: 8/6/96
o Food Quality Protection Act: 8/3/96
o Energy Policy Act of 1992: 10/24/92
o Clean Air Act of 1990: 11/15/90
o SDWA - 1986 Amendments: 6/19/86
o CERCLA (Superfund): House 9/23/80, Senate 11/24/80, POTUS 12/11/80
o Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA): 10/21/76
o Toxic Substances & Control Act (TSCA): 10/11/76
o SDWA: 12/16/74
o Clean Water Act: 10/18/72
o Establishment of the EPA: first proposed 7/9/70, established 12/2/70
o National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): 1/1/70
o The Wilderness Act: 9/3/64
As this list demonstrates, the Senate and the environmental movement are no strangers to passing major legislation right before - or just after - an election.
I don't want to overpromise success. This is an uphill battle. But if you and I show up to every town hall, rally, spaghetti dinner, and other rituals of election year and fight for our kids... fight for our country... fight for our America... we can turn the tide. Without that kind of passion, we will all lose. That's an outcome we must try hard to avoid, on behalf of people, communities, large and small businesses - oh, and our kids, sleeping peacefully or playing happily around the country.
In the meantime, we must also protect what we already have, like a plethora of state laws and the federal Clean Air Act. I recommend reading David Doniger's blog on Switchboard today that really outlines how we can make progress with the tools we have right now.
In coming weeks and months, we must continue to push forward for a strong, clean energy and climate bill, just like we have done countless times in the past. I am done with blame. History is on our side. Are you?
Take action today for a cleaner, stronger, and more sustainable future. Join NRDC Action Fund on Facebook and Twitter and stay up-to-date on the latest environmental issues and actions you can take to help protect our planet.
As the full scope of the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico continues to unfold, there's another energy-related drama in California. This one threatens the Golden State's landmark law (AB 32) to limit the greenhouse gas pollution that is already harming California and to promote a host of related clean energy policies that would benefit the state. A proposition that is now certified for the November ballot, Proposition 23 -- known as the "Dirty Energy Proposition" -- would kill investments and job creation in the new energy economy already spurred by AB 32 since it was enacted in 2006. This is one of the most important environmental campaigns of 2010, with implications far beyond California.
Two of the worst polluters in California, Texas-based oil companies Valero and Tesoro, are also funding this backwards ballot measure (Proposition 23) that would effectively repeal AB 32 and the clean energy policies such as clean fuel standards, pollution controls, and energy efficiency associated with the law's implementation.
The Texas-based oil companies supporting this ballot measure also have an insidious national strategy. They hope that by rolling back climate and energy policies in California, they can block progress in other states and derail federal climate legislation in Congress. Windfall oil profits allow these oil companies to pour millions of dollars into their campaign of disinformation, distraction, and deception. It is also worth noting that Valero and Tesoro were recently named the #12 and #32 polluters in the nation in the "Toxic 100 Air Polluters" report issued by the University of Massachusetts Amherst Political Economy Research Institute (PERI).
The bottom line is that we must stop Prop 23, which threatens to stunt and obliterate job growth in California's emerging clean energy sector (e.g., energy efficiency, solar, advanced building materials, and others). In contrast, California's economy would benefit greatly from a properly implemented AB 32. As the Stop Dirty Energy Proposition website reports:
"According to a new report by California's Employment Development Department, more than 500,000 employees already work part or full-time in so-called 'green' jobs."
"In recent months, dozens of companies have announced they would be locating manufacturing plants in California, specifically because of [the] state's progressive clean energy laws." These companies include Tesla, Solyndra, Nanosolar, and Kyocera.
"There are 10,000 megawatts of renewable power in California currently competing for federal stimulus dollars – directly because of AB 32. The total public and private investment from these projects is $30 billion and 15,000 new jobs."
"Creating energy efficient commercial and residential properties and retrofitting existing buildings will create tens of thousands of jobs in California and billions upon billions of economic activity directly for building trades workers and product manufacturers."
There's strong agreement among scientists that California's on the right track and that turning back state law is a very bad idea. Earlier this week, 118 economists wrote a letter which explained that "[d]elaying action...before initiating accelerated action to reduce global warming gases will be more costly than initiating action now." The economists added that policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging the development of clean energy will "improve our energy security, create new business opportunities and more jobs, and provide incentives for innovation."
Why would anyone want to stop this progress? For an answer to that question, you need to ask the Texas oil companies, although it's easy to figure out what their motivation might be. Hint: it's a word beginning with the letter "m" and rhyming with "funny."
Fortunately, there's a large and (rapidly) growing coalition fighting against Prop 23. A few highlights include: the League of Women Voters of California, Google, Levi Strauss, AARP, Pacific Gas & Electric, Consumers Union, the California Teachers Association, California Interfaith Power and Light, Governor Schwarzenegger, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and the California Federation of Labor. This past Sunday, the California Democratic Party unanimously voted to oppose Prop 23, declaring:
The California Democratic Party opposes Prop 23 because it will kill jobs, increase air pollution, and undermine our transition to a clean energy economy," said Tim Allison, chairman of the CDP's Environmental Caucus. "The Texas oil companies' dirty energy proposition is bad for our economy, our air and our energy future."
Also worth noting is that former Reagan Administration Secretary of State George P. Shultz has signed on as "honorary co-chair of Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs, a coalition opposing a proposed ballot measure to suspend the implementation of AB32." Shultz says, "As a former Secretary of State, I see our dependence on foreign oil as one of the greatest threats to national security, and the Dirty Energy Proposition would undermine efforts to break that dependence."
For all those reasons, and many more, I strongly encourage everyone to fight Proposition 23 and to defend California's landmark clean energy and climate law. Thank you.
Take action today for a cleaner, stronger, and more sustainable future. Join NRDC Action Fund on Facebook and Twitter and stay up-to-date on the latest environmental issues and actions you can take to help protect our planet.
On June 26, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 219-212 in favor of HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Only eight Republicans - we'll call them the "Enlightened Eight" - voted "aye." These Republicans were Mary Bono-Mack (CA-45), Mike Castle (DE-AL), John McHugh (NY-23), Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2), Leonard Lance (NJ-7), Mark Kirk (IL-10), Dave Reichert (WA-8), and Christopher Smith (NJ-4).
Republicans voting for cap and trade in the year of the Tea Party? You'd think that they'd be dumped in the harbor by now. Instead, they're all doing fine. In fact, to date, not a single one of these Republicans has been successfully primaried by the "tea party" (or otherwise). Instead, we have two - Castle and Kirk - running for U.S. Senate, one (McHugh) who was appointed Secretary of the Army by President Obama, and five others - Bono-Mack, LoBiondo, Lance, Reichert, Smith - running for reelection.
Rep. Lance actually was challenged by not one, not two, but three "Tea Party" candidates. One of Lance's opponents, David Larsen, even produced this nifty video, helpfully explaining that "Leonard Lance Loves Cap & Trade Taxes." So, did this work? Did the Tea Partiers overthrow the tyrannical, crypto-liberal Lance? Uh, no. Instead, in the end, Lance received 56% of the vote, easily moving on to November.
Meanwhile, 100 miles or so south on the Jersey Turnpike, Rep. LoBiondo faced two "Tea Party" candidates - Donna Ward and Linda Biamonte - who also attacked on the cap-and-trade issue. According to Biamonte, cap and trade "is insidious and another tax policy... a funneling of money to Goldman Sachs and Al Gore through derivatives creating a carbon bubble like the housing bubble." You'd think that Republican primary voters in the year of the Tea Party would agree with this line of attack. Yet LoBiondo won with 75% of the vote.
Last but not least in New Jersey, Christopher Smith easily turned back a Tea Party challenger - Alan Bateman - by a more than 2:1 margin. Bateman had argued that "Obama knows he can count on Smith to support the United Nations' agenda to redistribute American wealth to foreign countries through international Cap & Trade agreements and other programs that threaten our sovereignty." Apparently, Republican voters in NJ-4 didn't buy that argument.
Across the country in California's 45th District, Mary Bono-Mack won 71% of the vote over Tea Party candidate Clayton Thibodeau on June 8. This, despite Thibodeau attacking Bono-Mack as "the only Republican west of the Mississippi to vote for Cap and Trade." Thibodeau also called cap and trade "frightening," claiming that government could force you to renovate your home or meet requirements before you purchase a home. Thibodeau's scare tactics on cap-and-trade clearly didn't play in CA-45.
Finally, in Washington's 8th Congressional District, incumbent Rep. Dave Reichert has drawn a Tea Party challenger named Ernest Huber, who writes that Cap and Trade "is widely viewed as an attempt at Soviet-style dictatorship using the environmental scam of global warming/climate change... written by the communist Apollo Alliance, which was led by the communist Van Jones, Obama's green jobs czar." We'll see how this argument plays with voters in Washington's 8th Congressional District, but something tells us it's not going to go over any better than in the New Jersey or California primaries.
In sum, it appears that it's quite possible for Republicans to vote for comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation and live (politically) to tell about it. The proof is in the primaries.
On June 10th, we all celebrated the defeat of the Murkowski resolution, which would have gutted the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide pollution. Why we needed to defeat Murkowski was explained well by NRDC Action Fund Executive Director, Peter Lehner, who wrote the following prior to the vote:
EPA's proactive lead in greenhouse gas regulation is a critical aspect of the effort to reduce our rampant, destabilizing, and destructive dependence on foreign and offshore oil. While the endangerment finding does not, in itself, prescribe regulations, it provides the legal basis for critical standards: EPA's proposed CAFE efficiency standard for light-duty vehicles is projected to save over 455 million barrels per year, and an anticipated standard for heavy-duty vehicles will save billions more. Stripping EPA of its authority to implement these protections would increase our nation's dependence on oil and send hundreds of billions of dollars overseas. We cannot afford this big step backward, especially as we watch more oil gush into the Gulf each day.
In the end, the Senate didn't take that "big step backward" on June 10th, as the Murkowski resolution failed by a 47-53 vote. Many of us probably figured that was the end of this issue, and that the Senate would now move on to passing comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. Unfortunately, as is often the case in Washington, DC, it isn't that simple (let alone logical).
Today, clean air and public health are once again under an assault that constitutes, essentially, "Murkowski Part II." The Wall Street Journal reported on June 22:
As U.S. Senate lawmakers attempt to determine the fate of energy legislation, an influential Democrat is boosting efforts to suspend a controversial greenhouse-gas rule passed earlier this year by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
After introducing a bill to impose a two-year halt on the new EPA rule, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from coal-rich West Virginia, is now working to round up supporters for his legislation.
It should go without saying that this is completely unacceptable. As we all know, the public was outraged at Senator Murkowski's Big Oil Bailout bill. They understood that this moved the country backward, not forward, and that it was exactly the wrong way to go given the energy and environmental challenges we face. Through all our efforts, our phone calls and emails (and blog posts and tweets, etc.), we helped to kill Murkowski Part I. Now, unfortunately, Sen. Jay Rockefeller is pushing Murkowski Part II, yet there's far less attention being paid to this effort than to the Murkowski's EPA Castration Resolution Part I. People have a lot of other things on their minds, and they thought this fight was over back in June. But, once they find out that this effort is baaaaack, like a monster in a cheesy horror movie, they are not going to respond positively.
Of course, why would the public - which overwhelmingly supports taking action to promote clean energy and deal with climate change - ever respond positively to a proposal aimed at throwing away one of our key tools to cut pollution and protect public health? And why would they respond positively now of all times, as oil continues to spew into the Gulf of Mexico, as record heat waves scorch the United States, and as climate science is strengthened every day that goes by? Last but not least, why would they support an effort to protect the corporate polluters and not all of us who are being hurt by that pollution?
The bottom line is simple: instead of wasting its time on legislation that will only move the country backwards - towards dirty energy forever - the Senate should be busy passing a bill that moves the country forward towards a bright future of green energy, clean tech jobs, energy security and climate protection. Once our Senators hear that message loud and clear from all of us, Rockefeller's Murkowski Part II will be rejected by the Senate, just as Murkowski Part I was before it.
