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:
When the eighth largest economy in the world establishes a landmark greenhouse gas emissions cap, you can bet oil companies are going to try to find a way to knock it down for one reason: money.
Early voting is already underway (I just got mine in the mail yesterday) so I thought I'd toss this out there in case anyone's interested. Every election we have to sort through a ton of these initiatives. I encourage everyone to read through the fine print yourself, and to turn off the teevee entirely, given the utter dreck that passes for ads and debate out there. For what it's worth, this is how I see 'em.
Every ballot has a collection of themes, this ballot comes down to four: Pot Legalization, Redistricting, Taxes and Budget, and Global Warming:
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."
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.
Last Thursday, the Senate voted 53 to 47 to defeat the Murkowski resolution that would have undermined the EPA's ability to reduce global warming pollution. The vote provides a useful guide to how senators might act on a climate vote.
Of course, it is not a clear-cut comparison because some people voted against the flawed resolution to make a point about process or simply to support the science. It is significant to note that we have 10 more votes in favor of reducing carbon emissions than we did the last time climate change was discussed on the Senate floor two years ago.
But here is what I find most interesting about last week's vote: the number of Senators who have all publicly exclaimed that global warming is a pressing problem but who voted to block the EPA from dealing with it. Are they sitting on an "election year fence" or are the deep pockets of Big Oil & Coal companies propping up their campaign contribution fences? The question must be asked - Why do these senators benefit from burning caveman fuels?
Senator Rockefeller, for instance, said: "I am not here to deny or bicker fruitlessly about the science... In fact, I would suggest that I think the science is correct. Greenhouse gas emissions are not healthy for the Earth or her people, and we must take significant action to reduce them. We must develop and deploy clean energy, period."
And yet the man voted to hamstring the EPA. Indeed, Senator Rockefeller intends to push his own bill that would put the EPA's effort to confront global warming on hold--giving West Virginia's coal industry a free pass for two more years.
Senator Chambliss from Georgia, meanwhile, said, "I know the climate is changing." And Senator Hutchison from Texas declared: "As a solution to climate change, we need to work together to promote the use of clean and renewable sources of energy....It is important that we work together. We are the elected representatives of the people."
And yet both of them voted against one of our main tools for combating global warming pollution: the EPA.
I'm sorry, but if you really believe this is a crisis, why wouldn't you want to fight it with every weapon available? Why wouldn't you deploy the muscle of both Congress AND the federal government?
While I was listening to last week's debate, I couldn't help but be reminded of teaching my three-year-old how to tie her shoes. I showed her how to do it with two hands, of course. Why on earth would I suggest she do it with one?
Yet that is what these Senators seem to be proposing. Senator Collins from Maine said: "I believe global climate change and the development of alternatives to fossil fuels are significant and urgent priorities for our country."
Why would she want us to fight global warming with one hand tied behind our back?
On the one hand, these statements are good news - despite the yelping of Inhofe and Hatch, the Senate is not a bastion of climate deniers. There's even a consensus that something must be done. The bad news is they're still not doing it. What is it that these Senators actually would support that isn't just some vague theory?
WHITE HOUSE FINALIZES HISTORIC VEHICLE STANDARDS TO SAVE OIL, CUT POLLUTION, AND CREATE JOBS:
The Obama White House yesterday finalized new clean car rules from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Dept. of Transportation (NHTSA), securing the largest boost in fuel economy in decades and, for the first time, using the Clean Air Act to require reductions in the amount of heat-trapping emissions from cars and light trucks.
"To paraphrase the Vice-president, this is a really big deal," said Jim Kliesch, a senior engineer in the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Vehicles Program. "Because of these standards, Americans will drive vehicles that save them money at the pump, cut the country's oil dependence, and produce a lot less global warming pollution."
The joint rule will boost the average fleetwide fuel economy of new vehicles sold in the United States to 34.1 miles per gallon by model year 2016. The standards also set national global warming pollution standards for vehicles at 250 grams per mile, roughly 25 percent less than the emissions produced by today's average new vehicle.
So it's been over a week since Texas oil refiners (and two of California's worst polluters) Valero and Tesoro ponied up close to $2 million to launch a petition drive to get an initiative on the November ballot to kill AB 32, California's nation-leading legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels and encourage job creation in the booming green/clean energy and tech industries. Naturally, Valero, Tesoro and assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Chino), one of the initiative's primary sponsors, are doing their best to keep Texas Big Oil's involvement in the petition a secret, refusing to confirm or deny that Valero/Tesoro are actually the sole funders of the signature drive and stand to profit from insuring that Californians continue to breath some of the dirtiest, most unhealthy air in the nation.
Unfortunately for them, the secret is out. Supporters of AB 32, the environment and clean energy started a website, NoOnValero.com, to let Californians know that the effort to kill AB 32 is about Big Oil profits, not saving or creating jobs. They also staged a rally in front of a Sacramento Valero station to tell Valero to mind its own business. Below is news coverage of the event, and you can also visit the No On Valero Youtube channel to hear what the protesters think of Valero's involvement in trying to kill AB 32.
Not to be outdone, the Teabaggers, America's favorite racists and climate change/evolution deniers, decided to stage their own pro-Valero rally the next week. That's right, a rally to celebrate the fact that an out-of-state Big Oil company -- a member of one of America's most hated industries after banks and health insurers -- is attempting to further corrupt our political system and compromise the health of Californians. Because apparently Teabaggers, who claim to value what they call "freedom", think it's better if unelected Texas CEOs of heavy-polluting corporations write California's anti-pollution laws. Also, someone may want to tell the Teabaggers that Valero's involvement in the petition is supposed to be, you know, a secret. And I'll be curious to hear what Valero thinks of getting the support of a group known mostly for racism, unhinged anger, willful ignorance and irrational, apocalyptic conspiracy theories.
California's Suspend AB32, deceptively entitled "California Jobs Initiative," is one of the stupidest ideas cooked up in a state not named Utah or Texas. AB32 is California's landmark climate law, requiring the state to reduce its greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020. A Republican member of the state assembly, Dan Logue, has proposed that the law be suspended until unemployment drops below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters -- effectively gutting the law entirely, as unemployment has rarely been that low for that long.
The initiative ran into financial trouble last month, but it's been resurrected from the grave. The money behind this particular zombie looks like it's coming from two large Texas-based refiners, Tesoro and Valero. If so, the initiative may be in violation of California Fair Political Practices Committee regulations.
The move by republicans and polluters to suspend/kill AB 32, California's Global Warming Solutions Act that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and spur green job growth, was dealt a devastating blow on Friday -- one of the authors of the much-cited (and much-criticized) Varshney/Tootelian report (VTR), which predicts an economic catastrophe if California implements AB 32, is now backing away from the report's claims.
Facing yet another round of criticism -- this time in a report by Stanford University economist Jim Sweeney that found VTR to be "highly biased...based on poor logic and unsound economic analysis" and overstates the costs of AB 32 "by a factor of at least 10" -- Sanjay Varshney has refused to defend his report's claims. When asked by a reporter for the Sacramento Business Journal to respond to Sweeney's criticism, Varshney, who is Dean of the Business School at California State University Sacramento, would only say, "I haven't really kept up with the debate. It will be very difficult for me to comment." (You need to be a subscriber to see the full article.)
Hardly what you'd call a full-throated defense, or even a boilerplate response about his confidence in both his methods and his conclusions. And Varshney should be well-prepared to address the kind of criticism found in the Stanford report since it echoes criticisms found by other economists, as well as the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The main and most obvious criticism of VTR is that it only looks at the projected costs of implementing AB 32 ($24.9 billion) while purposefully omitting any of the savings that AB 32 would generate ($40.4 billion) -- a net savings of $15.5 billion.
California has always represented a better future, and we seem more impatient to get there than anyone else. The examples are endless: the settlers risking everything to reinvent themselves on California's fertile soil, the surfers who decided they'd rather surf the streets on skateboards than wait for waves, to the dotcom boom that created the internet age. When California is ready to lead, it's best if you get out of the way. Because when California leads, it often benefits the entire country -- and sometimes the world.
And California is ready to do it again, with a plan to guide America to a greener, cleaner, more sustainable future, and pull the nation out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. That plan is AB 32 (aka the Global Warming Solutions Act), California's nation-leading initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) to 1990 levels through a mix of energy efficiency, clean/sustainable energy investment and regulations to force California's polluters to clean up their own messes. In addition to improving the environment and the health of Californians, study after study show that AB 32 will be a major job creator with little or no impact on small businesses. That's why over 2,400 large and small businesses, many in California, have joined American Businesses for Clean Energy, a diverse coalition calling on Congress to pass clean energy and climate legislation. And with the green/clean economy creating job growth and venture capital investment at a faster rate than the rest of the economy, California could position itself to lead the nation and the world in exportable green technology and solutions, just as it has with computers, software and the internet.
But this is not the first time California has attempted to lead the nation with a pioneering piece of legislation to reduce GHGE. In 1990, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed the Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate. It stated that any large automaker selling cars in California would have to derive at least 10% of its overall sales from cars that produce practically zero emissions -- with 2% of the cars producing no emissions at all -- by 2003. That meant that unless an automaker wanted to lose the huge California car market, they would have to begin making all-electric vehicles.
As most of you are well aware, last week was a snow week in Washington, DC, and the odds are pretty good that there's something like that going on for you as well.
Our good friends in the conservative community have seized upon the moment as proof that this whole "global warming" thing is just a big scam perpetrated by the likes of Al Gore and his Legion Of Weather Nazis; their mission being only to deprive the American people of their Constitutional right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of a Ford Super Duty F-450 King Ranch Edition with the Heavy Service Suspension Package, Snow Plow Prep Package, Transmission Power Take-Off Provision, dual alternators, and supplemental cab heater.
To drive the point home, last week Senator James Inhofe's family went to the time and trouble to build a little igloo on the National Mall for our amusement.
But here's a question: just what has the weather been like in other places-for example, in my part of the world...or in the Senator's home State of Oklahoma?
It's a good question-and the Senator won't like the answer.
Just as Tom Campbell announced he was dropping out of the California governor's race to run for the United States Senate, one of the two remaining Republican candidates in the race ramped up his attack on California's Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32).
Steve Poizner-not to be outdone by fellow candidate Meg Whitman's announcement in fall 2009 that she would suspend AB 32 on her first day in office as governor-put out a press release this week announcing his support for the so-called "jobs" initiative" (actually an outright attack on AB 32) that will appear on the California ballot in November 2010 if anti-environmental forces can gather enough signatures for it to qualify.
Poizner's and Whitman's attacks on California's landmark global warming law have earned them unflattering nicknames from Calbuzz: "Smokestack Steve" and "Monoxide Meg."
It is increasingly clear that Californians who care about our state's natural beauty and the health of our communities must mobilize to "Build a Greener Governor" (http://www.greengov2010.org/) before the candidates, including the undeclared Democratic candidate Jerry Brown, take this race to the bottom on the environment any further.
This anti-AB 32 initiative is just the latest chapter in a sustained and coordinated effort to roll back the progress the Golden State has made against global warming and greenhouse gas emissions that threaten our health, our economy and our planet.
The Courage Campaign thought Californians should know about that. And our members agreed, putting up the money to get this ad produced and now aired on stations in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and the Silicon Valley.
You can hear the ad by clicking this link. And you can donate to help support and expand the ad buy at the same link. Just a few dollars - $25, $50, $100, whatever you can give - will help spread the word.
We've already been getting some earned media attention on this ad. Last night Candy Crowley mentioned it on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360° show. And on Tuesday, Carla Marinucci covered it at the SF Chronicle blog.
We'd love it if you could help us expand the buy. Meg Whitman is blanketing the state with her ads. The Courage Campaign doesn't have those kind of resources, but with your help we can get this ad on more radio stations and hold Whitman accountable.
Over the flip is the transcript of the ad.
Note: I'm the Public Policy Director for the Courage Campaign
(From our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
First of its kind economic analysis shows significant cuts in global warming pollution will cost small businesses only pennies
Los Angeles County - As international climate treaty negotiations begin in Copenhagen amid controversy over economic impacts, a new report shows that the costs for small business operating under California's landmark climate law (AB 32) can be measured in pennies. Conducted by leading economists and released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today, the report finds that AB 32 policies will only increase the percent of small business revenue spent on energy by only 0.3 percentage points--from 1.4 to 1.7 percent--in 2020. In a case study which examines a real world small business--Border Grill restaurant--the report finds AB 32 will cost diners a mere 3 cents extra per $20 meal in 2020.
The analysis, The Economic Impact of AB 32 on California Small Businesses ( www.ucsusa.org/small_business ), a peer-reviewed first-of-its-kind analysis, uses empirical data on the cost characteristics of small businesses to estimate the economic impacts of AB 32 and was commissioned by UCS and conducted by The Brattle Group, an international economic consulting firm.
"Our report finds that the incremental cost impact of AB 32 on the average California small business will be relatively small and definitely manageable," said Jurgen Weiss of the Brattle Group, and co-author of the report. "The AB 32 cost impact pales in comparison to the effect of inflation over ten years, and falls well within the range of historic cost variation most small businesses face everyday regardless of climate policy."
The Brattle Group projected the likely changes in electricity, natural gas, and gasoline prices due to the major AB 32 policies: cap and trade (which puts a price on carbon), a 33% renewable energy standard, increased energy efficiency measures, and a low-carbon fuel standard.
Today is the big day. The California Air Resources Board released the draft proposal for California's cap-and-trade program to allocate carbon emissions permits to large polluting companies. The program is the flagship proposal of the legislation and the principle legislative success Governor Schwarzenegger is clutching onto for his "environmental" legacy. It is also the remnant of former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez's legacy, who pushed the legislation through the legislture in 2006 with then Assembly member and now Senator Fran Pavley .
At stake is the environmental and economic future of the state. A recent report commissioned by the Natural Resource Defense Council on the American Clean Energy and Security Act which passed out of the House of Representatives earlier this year, identified $300 billion in investment that could be redirected to clean jobs. If California's emissions program is aggressive enough to stimulate the innovation and economic development of California's clean energy sector, California could reap the benefits and jobs that come from the federal effort. Even if the feds don't pass the legislation, California could see the economic boon from its own program.
The danger that remains to be seen is if the business community will be successful in securing free pollution permits under the program. The business lobby has been pushing hard and this program is the only bill the Governor has signed that the CA Chamber of Commerce has actively opposed. Known for broken promises and half hearted policy goals, this program could be the last hope for a Governor in search of a box office legacy.
The Griffith R. Harsh IV and Margaret C. Whitman Charitable Foundation in 2007 contributed $100,000 to the Environmental Defense Fund, which is now at odds with Whitman over water policy. The foundation also invested $3 million in hedge funds based in the Cayman Islands - a Caribbean tax haven that's been the subject of political controversy. (SJ Merc 11/6/09)
Meanwhile, the task that AB 32 seeks out to accomplish, reduce carbon levels to 1990 levels by 2020, is not impossible. In fact, San Francisco will achieve that goal by 2012, and is on track to beat that mark considerably. Mayor Newsom says that that the City will likely reduce total carbon emissions by 20 over the ten year period of 2002-2012. Sure, there are differences between SF and the rest of the state, the main one being the relatively stagnant population in our 7x7 mile corner of the Peninsula. However, going green is not nearly as challenging as Whitman makes it out to be.
And heck, she just ask some of her foundation recpients about that. As Robert pointed out, this is your Republican front-runner. W00t!
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today dismissed a vow by Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman to suspend California's landmark greenhouse gas law if she's elected to succeed him next year as "just rhetoric that is going on among the candidates."
"You will hear all kinds of stories," Schwarzenegger told an audience at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. "What will happen in reality and what they will do when they go into office is probably a whole different ballgame, and I think she will probably reconsider what she said.
"I'm sure she does not want to be counted as one of those Republicans that will want to move us back to the Stone Age or something like that," the Republican governor said. "So I would pay no attention to this kind of rhetoric."
Of course, relics from the Stone Age are the target demographic for a Republican primary, so Whitman has to say what she said. And she's not being accused of political pandering by, of all people, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Which should make for a fun weekend when the two appear together at the GOP convention in Indian Wells starting tomorrow.
Poizner's camp issued a statement in response to the story this morning, attacking the Whitman campaign for "refusing to answer simple questions and deliberately lying to cover up the facts" and calling for the candidate to "step aside" and drop out of the race.
"It's understandable that Meg Whitman is ashamed of this record. But it's unacceptable that she continues to run from the record and deceive voters. Though there is no shred of evidence she ever registered as a Republican before 2007, she insists she did, yet she refuses to provide any evidence. Her arrogant answer: 'Go find it,' " Communications Director Jarrod Agen said in a statement. "In the history of America, no one has been elected governor of a state with Meg Whitman's 25 year history of no-show voting. She is unelectable and has tried to cover her lack of honesty with millions of dollars."
Hysterical. By the way, if you think eMeg's voting record is bad, take a look at iCarly's. Quite a team they'll make on the GOP ticket next year...
(x-posted from DailyKos)
The skies are finally clearing above Los Angeles. For days, they've been that peculiar yellowish color. The Station fire, largest in county history, is 42% contained. So far, the official cause is arson.
Meanwhile, the city of Los Angeles has imposed water rationing, and hundreds of miles to the north, the California state legislature prepares to tackle the water issue. Governor Schwarzenegger claims that the cause of the drought is the Delta smelt, a two inch long fish.
Everything has a cause, but some causes are more important than others.
