Got a simple little story for you today of a multinational corporation that wants to build a great big cement plant in North Carolina really, really, bad, and the local opposition to what appears to be a corrupt and distorted decision process.
Two local activists in particular have drawn the ire of Titan Cement, the Grecian corporation who seeks to build the plant-and because the Company doesn't like what the activists have been saying about what the impact of that plant will likely be or how the deal's going down...they're suing Kayne Darrell and Dr. David Hill, residents of North Carolina's New Hanover County, and the two folks who are doing the complaining the Company dislike the most.
The Company further claims that they were slandered and defamed by the damaging statements that were uttered by the two at a county commissioners' meeting and that they have lost goodwill and the chance to do business with certain parties as a result of these statements.
But what if everything the Defendants said was not only true...but provably so-and the Company was, maybe...just looking to shut people up by sending teams of lawyers after them?
As I said, it's a simple story today-but it's a good one.
We're now into day way too many of the BP oil spill, and the President has just yesterday been down on the Louisiana coast-again.
There have been suggestions that the Administration should take action to essentially push BP out of the way and take over the work itself, particularly as it relates to the cleanup.
It may have even occurred to you that an official declaration of some sort might be needed, in order to bring the full power of the Feds into play.
That's some good thinking, but before we go jumping right into declaring things we better understand the law, because if we don't, we could actually make things worse.
So it's been over a week since Texas oil refiners (and two of California's worst polluters) Valero and Tesoro ponied up close to $2 million to launch a petition drive to get an initiative on the November ballot to kill AB 32, California's nation-leading legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels and encourage job creation in the booming green/clean energy and tech industries. Naturally, Valero, Tesoro and assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Chino), one of the initiative's primary sponsors, are doing their best to keep Texas Big Oil's involvement in the petition a secret, refusing to confirm or deny that Valero/Tesoro are actually the sole funders of the signature drive and stand to profit from insuring that Californians continue to breath some of the dirtiest, most unhealthy air in the nation.
Unfortunately for them, the secret is out. Supporters of AB 32, the environment and clean energy started a website, NoOnValero.com, to let Californians know that the effort to kill AB 32 is about Big Oil profits, not saving or creating jobs. They also staged a rally in front of a Sacramento Valero station to tell Valero to mind its own business. Below is news coverage of the event, and you can also visit the No On Valero Youtube channel to hear what the protesters think of Valero's involvement in trying to kill AB 32.
Not to be outdone, the Teabaggers, America's favorite racists and climate change/evolution deniers, decided to stage their own pro-Valero rally the next week. That's right, a rally to celebrate the fact that an out-of-state Big Oil company -- a member of one of America's most hated industries after banks and health insurers -- is attempting to further corrupt our political system and compromise the health of Californians. Because apparently Teabaggers, who claim to value what they call "freedom", think it's better if unelected Texas CEOs of heavy-polluting corporations write California's anti-pollution laws. Also, someone may want to tell the Teabaggers that Valero's involvement in the petition is supposed to be, you know, a secret. And I'll be curious to hear what Valero thinks of getting the support of a group known mostly for racism, unhinged anger, willful ignorance and irrational, apocalyptic conspiracy theories.
Stealthily and without fanfare, a petition has been launched to get a measure on the November ballot suspending AB 32, California's landmark legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions and spur green job growth. So who is funding the signature drive? None other than San Antonio-based oil refiners Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp. -- the #7 and #8 biggest polluters in California. From the LA Times:
Two Texas-based refinery giants have pledged as much as $2 million to fund signature gathering for a ballot initiative to suspend California's landmark global warming law [AB 32], according to Sacramento sources.
The companies, Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp., own refineries in California that would be forced under the law to slash emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
But neither Valero or Tesoro is owning up to it.
A Tesoro spokesman did not respond to inquiries. But the company's website invites visitors to lobby Congress to ensure "fair" climate legislation and fight any effort by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Bill Day, a Valero spokesman, declined to confirm or deny the company's involvement, saying that "any contributions would come out in normal disclosures" under California's campaign laws.
And neither is Dan Logue (R-Marysville), one of the initiative's main sponsors. From NYTimes:
Dan Logue, the Republican assemblyman behind the suspension, also refused to discuss where funds had originated.
So forget about the astroturf groups claiming the movement to kill AB 32 is a bunch of small local businesses worried about their survival in a tough economy. The mask is off the anti-AB 32 movement, and behind it is exactly what we thought we would find: big oil, big pollution, big corporations and the corporatist Republicans who love them. That's why Logue, Valero and Tesoro refuse to admit where the money for the ballot initiative is coming from, even if it means possibly violating California Fair Political Practices Committee regulations. The fact that Texas Big Oil is funding an initiative to keep California's air dirty and kill its burgeoning green economy is a PR nightmare.
So let's have no more illusions about what the move to kill AB 32 is all about.
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.
The Associated Press reports that abandoned mercury mines in the western hills of the Central Valley are still polluting California's streams, lakes, the delta and the bay. Sources are widespread, located from Clear Lake in the north to the San Joaquin River in the south. Even the hills near San Jose have mines that drain to south San Francisco Bay.
(While the issues within the State Capitol are important, we also need to work on rebuilding a sustainable economy for the future. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
According to Miguel Figueroa, the Executive Director of the Calexico New River Committee (the sponsors of AB 1079), "Despite decades of resolutions, studies and promises, our city has not received the sustained leadership and support from California that we need to solve this problem. We commend Assemblyman Perez for making New River clean-up a priority in his first term in office..."
Perez is doing what he said he'd do for the region no one has served up to now- clean up the New River, the biggest environmental and public health disaster in the 80th since the 1940s. Though Senator Ducheny made progress in 2005, it took Perez to get the full coalition together and the federal funds released.
The Desert Sun, true to form, tucks the credit for this "unprecedented attention" and the "reversal of years of neglect" into the second page:
The California-Mexico Border Relations Council in coming weeks will host a public hearing in Imperial County to get residents' feedback. The relatively new organization, made up of key state secretaries, is tasked with identifying major border issues.
Assemblyman V. Manuel Pérez, a Coachella Democrat who secured the state funding and is organizing the coming visits, has authored a bill giving the border council authority to coordinate a restoration plan with locals and oversee the necessary environmental studies.
(btw, If this had been a Benoit or Nestande Republican success, we'd have seen their names in the first line, plus photo. No liberal media here.)
Yes, I'd like him to do all of this and be as far in front on the budget as Nancy Skinner. But reclaiming a healthful environment along the New River is transformative stuff, too. The people who live along the New River have an Assemblymember, finally.
Perez will face a well funded challenger in all likelihood. Can a Republican challenger can peel this constituency off with attacks on Manuel's support for the gay community and women's healthcare rights? Jeandron tried last year and failed. The New River is toxic to the touch, and dooms the whole region to poverty. If Perez can turn that around, he'll have done more than every Republican combined since the 1940s.
The California Budget Project has done a preliminary report on the "solution" (and I'm glad they put it in quotes) reached yesterday and expected to be signed by the Governor today. They demystify the fact that this is, once again, a short-term fix that will actually worsen our budget situation in the future. The $42 billion dollar hole from this year is a direct result of constant short-term fixes over the past several decades, pushing off the problem until the current legislators are out of office. Even in this budget, it is balanced through $6 billion in borrowing, which might as well be magic since we have the worst bond rating in the country.
The worst part of this is the spending cap, which could cripple future budget and severely ratchet down state services well beyond demand or even the rate of inflation and population increases. We have seen from other states how this is a hammer on the heads of the least of society and it must be fought in the May 19 special election. But the CBP is just as perturbed about the massive tax cuts, at a time of a $42 billion dollar deficit, to large multinational corporations:
Give multi-state corporations the option to choose between two different formulas for determining how much of their income would be subject to tax in California. This provision would be in effect in tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2011 and would cost $650 million in the first full year of implementation, eventually increasing to $1.5 billion annually. This provision provides no benefit to small businesses that only operate in California.
The tax breaks for movie companies and new construction home buyers and for hiring new workers (which history has shown doesn't end up increasing employment but increasing employer chicanery with their payrolls) are all temporary, as are the tax increases. The only PERMANENT tax in the entire plan is this giveaway to giant corporations like Exxon. This is why Richard Holober claims that big business is the "only winner" in this budget.
The worst of the business tax cuts is a permanent change in the formula for calculating the income tax for multi-state and multinational corporations. This produces an initial big business tax cut of about $700 million a year. The State Senate analysis estimates the recalculation will eventually yield a corporate tax reduction - and state revenue loss - of $1.5 billion a year. This is not tax fairness. Combined with the tax hikes on everyday Californians, it is redistribution of income away from workers and consumers and into the pockets of our state's biggest businesses. And it provides no tax savings for the mom and pop businesses that we usually count on to provide the camouflage for these corporate welfare schemes.
Another major sin in this budget are the agreements secured by Republicans to essentially increase greenhouse gas emissions by relaxing environmental regulations for large diesel vehicles. This is another example of Arnold Schwarzenegger being a complete hypocrite, running around the country painting himself as the "green governor" while ramming through a provision directly contrary to that.
Like the budget itself, AB 8 XX was not the subject of any public hearings. The measure's scaling back of emission controls was one of many concessions sought by Republicans in order for three of them in the Assembly and three in the Senate to vote for the budget.
Since there were no public hearings on the measure, it was easy for the GOP to side with the construction industry and ignore the majority of its members who want California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality.
A 2006 statewide by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 62 percent of Republicans strongly support state action to ratchet down greenhouse gas emissions. So do 73 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of independent voters.
That same poll found that two-thirds of likely voters for rolling greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020. That is the legislation that became AB 32.
Finally, there is $5.8 billion that will be on the ballot for voters to agree upon, including a privatization of the lottery (which assumes a $5 billion sale... who is lining up to buy the California Lottery?) that would be a net loss of revenue for the state in the long-term, and $800 billion in raids from various voter-approved funds for things like mental health treatment. Considering how unpopular the legislature is these days, there is no guarantee that any of these will pass, which will leave another hole to fill by June.
These are just some of the details that reinforce the object lesson that major fundamental reforms, in particular repealing the 2/3 rule, are desperately needed. None of the above measures help the state. They were put in to placate a fanatical minority who is emboldened by a conservative veto. Sign the pledge to repeal 2/3.
So Abel's tears found a floor, and the deal is now done. It's a terrible, terrible deal. Let's first focus on what Maldonado got, which is less than meets the eye.
• He got his open primary legislation on the ballot, but not until June 2010. Arnold was interested in it, and so it was likely to get on that ballot anyway. This won't help Maldo in 2010, which was probably a condition of the deal. Considering that it affects Congressional races as well as legislative ones, I expect Nancy Pelosi to go all in trying to defeat and I don't expect it to pass. Open primaries have lost on the ballot in the past.
• The constitutional amendment banning legislative pay increases during deficit years passed; the amendment cutting all legislative pay during a late budget failed.
• The 12-cent gas tax increase was cut, replaced with a slight increase to the state income tax, federal stimulus money (which was always going to fill in because it was more than budgeted for) and $600 million in unspecified line-item vetoes from the Governor, which are going to be ugly. Let's just say that the huge corporate tax cut is not the first place Arnold's going to look.
Now, that's what Maldonado got. Among the other goodies in this budget, besides the corporate tax cuts and the privatization of state highway projects and the rest, are:
• A $10,000 tax credit for homebuyers, but only if they buy new construction. So a "developer bailout" when there is all kinds of existing inventory sitting on the market and lowering property values inside communities. And now there's an incentive for them to stay there. Great.
• Rental car companies can pass VLF increases on to customers, which they probably would have done anyway, but this makes it even easier.
• One provision allows for the delay of retrofitting of heavy diesel equipment, which will maintain poor air pollution in at-risk communities, and let's face it, kill people. Don't believe me, take it from the Chairman of the Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols: "There are people who will die because of this delay."
Dan Weintraub is right - this is a budget the GOP can be proud of, because it's a profoundly conservative budget. Because they hold a conservative veto over it. And they get the best of both worlds - they don't have to vote for the budget en masse so they don't have to own it. In short, the hijacking worked. And that's a function of process, not personality.
As Jean Ross says, "If this year's budget negotiations don't increase public support for reducing the vote requirement for approval of a budget and tax increases, it is not clear what will."
...there are two initiatives that have entered circulation that would repeal 2/3 for budget and taxes, and replace it with an arbitrary 55%. It should be majority rule. But it's about to gather signatures. Budgets and bad policies can eventually be changed if the process is changed.
The economic recovery that is currently being bandied about in Congress, particularly in the House, would deliver $4.5 billion dollars for infrastructure projects to California. That's 10% of overall infrastructure spending, which is in line with our population, but the overall pot for infrastructure is too small nationwide, and that kind of relief is not enough to make a dent in the budget nightmare. The fact that money for tax cuts designed to snare Republican votes is crowding out infrastructure spending and job creation contributes to this, but the other problem is the deteriorating nature of our infrastructure, which could cost half a trillion dollars to fix properly. All that money doesn't have to come from the Feds, but with the bond markets unwilling to deliver for California until a budget solution is made, $4.5 billion over two years is a drop in the bucket, and the problem will grow worse. This shows why floating bonds is a horrible way to fund government.
The report cites California's dependence on bond financing as a chief reason the state can't meet its infrastructure financing needs. California has increasingly used borrowing through state general obligation bonds to finance infrastructure projects. But the need for infrastructure investment far exceeds the capacity of these bonds, according to the report, Paying for Infrastructure: California's Choices. Years of declining investment have left the state with crumbling classrooms, congested roads, and an aging levee network that puts many homes and businesses in harm's way. Problems in the government bond market are making it more difficult to sell the bonds already authorized, and in the long term, large projected budget shortfalls will limit the state's ability to rely on these bonds to meet California's future needs.
We can of course see this right now, and the effects are widespread. With the bond markets frozen, environmental projects all over the state have to be shut down, having a very real impact on the environment and public health. Forget the more innovative projects we'd all like to see strengthened with fiscal investment - like the growth of the solar industry and even wave harvesting, the type of green jobs that can save our economy - we're not even going to be able to clean the ocean this year.
If swimmers in Santa Monica Bay bump into trash or bacteria this summer, one culprit will be California's budget impasse.
Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of voter-approved projects have been halted because of the state's financial problems. That includes $12 million that the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission was counting on to prevent dirty storm water and filthy runoff from draining into the bay.
"People expect to be able to enjoy the beach and not come home sick," said state Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), chairwoman of the state Senate Water and Natural Resources Committee.
The money freeze has immobilized construction of new biking trails along the Santa Ana River in San Bernardino and Orange counties. It has stopped plans to tear down the Matilija Dam in Ventura County and restore the sediment-filled Matilija reservoir. It has impeded efforts to boost the populations of salmon and steelhead trout off the coast of Los Angeles and Ventura counties.
These are not small inconveniences. A new report from Brigham Young University scientists shows that cleaner air, for example, has a direct effect on increasing the lifespan of a population. There is a cost to bad borrowing. If we can't fund infrastructure, the ports and the oceans don't get cleaned. Smog reduction projects may shutter. The air gets dirtier. And you die three years earlier.
California's delegation needs to push for General Fund relief in the recovery package, as well as federal guarantees for our municipal bonds, which would frankly jump-start projects faster than anything. If it's good enough for the banks, it should be good enough for California.
UPDATE: OK, the CBPP has a more comprehensive report, and the numbers are much more in line with current needs. They predict that California will get $11.1 billion in increased Medi-Cal spending, and $7.8 billion from a new State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, in addition to the infrastructure spending. That approaches $20 billion over the next two fiscal years.
CALIFORNIA TAKES ANOTHER GIANT LEAP ON GLOBAL WARMING POLICY AIR BOARD RELEASES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CUT POLLUTION
SACRAMENTO (June 26, 2008) - The California Air Resources Board (CARB) released the nation's most comprehensive plan to date for reducing the pollution that causes global warming. While the plan is still a proposal, it represents the furthest step forward any state has taken in the fight against global warming, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
Patricia Monahan, the director of UCS's California office, said CARB's plan would add more momentum to the fight against global warming. "California is showing the rest of the country how we can build a clean energy economy," she said. "There's no drilling our way out of energy problems. As energy prices skyrocket, consumers need real alternatives that sip rather than guzzle, and that are homegrown instead of imported."
The 75+ page plan includes a range of policy recommendations. Chief among them is increasing the state's renewable electricity standard. The plan also contains provisions for a regional cap-and-trade program that could work in harmony with other more specific policies to reduce pollution economywide. The plan also says CARB will consider a vehicle "feebate" program that would provide incentives to consumers to buy cleaner cars.
In addition, the proposal includes plans to reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks with hybrid engine technology and better fuel economy. Like many of CARB's proposals, the heavy-duty truck provisions would improve public health by also reducing smog-forming pollution. The plan also advocates for a high-speed train system in California.
Christopher Busch, a UCS climate economist, pointed out that many of the draft plan's policies would save consumers money and yield economic benefits, while the overall cost of implementing the plan would likely be negligible. "Fundamentally, we're talking about making our economy more efficient, which will give us energy savings," he said. "And investing in clean, renewable energy will make our electricity and fuel supplies more diverse, and insulate us from price swings in the fossil fuel market."
Busch added that global warming pollution reduction strategies also would provide public health benefits by cleaning up the air as well as support the state's growing clean technology industries. "California has proven time and again that we can clean our air and grow our economy," he said. "Now the state is going to prove the same thing with global warming."
The renewable electricity standard in the plan would require utilities to generate 33 percent of their electricity from clean, renewable sources, such as wind and solar power, by 2020. Such a standard would reduce global warming pollution by an amount equivalent to avoiding the construction of 10 new large fossil fuel power plants or removing nearly 3 million cars from the road. And such a standard could save residents money on their electricity bills by displacing natural gas. Additionally, it would reduce smog-forming pollution, create new green-collar jobs in the state, and bolster California's growing clean technology sector.
"California has a wealth of renewable electricity potential we aren't tapping into yet," said Dan Kalb, UCS's California policy coordinator. "Shifting to clean, safe sources of carbon-free electricity in a smart and well-planned manner is a win for the environment, the economy and consumers."
There are a bunch of things that I wanted to post about that I might as well highlight in one post, kind of like when Asia recruited members of Yes, King Crimson, and Uriah Heep to create a "supergroup":
• BeDevine notes that yet another gender-neutral marriage bill has passed the Legislature, and once again Arnold Schwarzenegger has vowed to veto it because "the people have already spoken on that issue." Apparently the people don't vote for their own representatives in the state legislature. And at what point does the statute of limitations run out on referring to a ballot measure from 2000?
• Senator Loewenthal has pulled back the container fee bill that would have charged importers a $30 fee on each cargo container to go towards fighting pollution at the ports. This will go into negotiation and probably be passed in some form in 2008. Hopefully it'll be a form that will still have some teeth.
• Dan Weintraub makes the fallacious argument that the United Farm Workers are somehow betraying their principles by asking for the ability to form a union after a majority of employees sign cards endorsing it. He thinks that there's no intimidation in a secret ballot election, apparently ignoring decades of union busting, threats, and workplace closures that have arisen from attempts to unionize.
• As mentioned in the Quickies, the CA Hospital Association has agreed to a tax in themselves... sort of. In exchange, they would receive money back to them based on how many poor people they treat. Most hospitals would actually make money on the deal. It's also hard to see how this would do anything to fix our state's strained emergency rooms, which presumably is where these poor people would be encouraged to go for treatment.
• Also in the Quickies is some good news on the enviroment, as new CARB chief Mary Nichols has set some pretty strong targets for emissions cuts. They're first steps but they presage positive developments in the future.
• Finally, the Teamsters waged a successful protest at the California-Mexico border against the Bush Administration effort to allow 100 Mexican trucking companies to deliver goods anywhere in the United States. This will not only damage our environment and public safety by opening up the roads to unsafe Mexican trucks, it undermines American job security for one of the few good union industries left to our working class. The goal is to marginalize unionized truckers, pure and simple. Matt Stoller thinks this could be the next "Dubai ports deal" if the word gets out about it.
Oh, my! So are we really in a state of emergency? SCAG says so. Why are we in a state of emergency? Here's what The OC Register says:
Air pollution accounts for more than 5,400 premature deaths in the region annually, according to the Southern California Association of Governments. On Thursday, the group's 71-member board voted to urge the emergency declarations as a way of tightening federal and state laws that regulate cars, trucks, ships and trains.
Those sources account for much of Southern California's smog.
"When we have a hurricane or earthquake, they declare a state of emergency," said Hasan Ikhrata, SCAG director of planning and policy. "These numbers are out of this world so this is significant enough that they should do the same thing."
SCAG includes local lawmakers from Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura and Imperial counties.
So the federal government should declare a state of emergency in Southern California because of our pollution? Huh? Follow me after the flip for more on why regional pollution really is raising eyebrows (and asthma levels)...
In 2006, Jim Brandt fought the good fight in his run for Congress against our favoriteloonyincumbentDana Rohrabacher. Today, he is moving on to a new challenge: Helping the Democrats retain the Assembly seat currently held by moderate Democrat Betty Karnette.
Follow me after the flip for more about the man who I hope will be the next Assemblymember from the 54th District...
