I noticed Jeremy Wade's editorial in Beyond Chron, and while I might agree with the odd point here and there, he misses the forest for the trees. First, before we discuss the important issues raised surrounding solar and clean energy, I should point out that the allegations (also picked up at LA-ist) made against some of the environmental organizations are just not true. I have confirmed with several of the groups that they have not taken money from the utilities. I haven't made an exhaustive search of these records, but let's just toss that stink bomb aside. It's only meant to be sensational, and create divisiveness within the environmental community. Such accusations against groups that have fought valiantly for clean energy are not helpful to a conversation about the future of renewables. UPDATE: I was mistaken about at least one of the groups, CLCV. They have taken some money from PG&E to their IE committee.
Bob's post today about the San Francisco Clean Energy Act brings up the other issue: conflating the two initiatives. They are not the same thing. The Clean Energy Act seeks to get to 100% renewables in SF. That's a good thing, especially with Al Gore's challenge to do so within 10 years. But that act is not connected to Prop 7. The SF Clean Energy Act has gone through public hearings, was placed on the ballot by a majority of the Board of Supervisors, and has a long list of endorsements, including several environmental organizations, Asm. Mark Leno and former PUC General Manager Susan Leal. In fact, I personally support the SF Clean Energy Act. But let's be clear: the SF CEA is not the same thing as Prop 7.
The endorsement list for Yes on 7 is considerably shorter, consisting mostly of a few local officials that former SF Supervisor (and current Yes on 7 Consultant) Jim Gonzalez knew from back in the day. As to those environmental organizations: they are overwhelmingly opposed to the measure. Toss in the California Young Democrats, the California Labor Federation, and the California Solar Energy Industries Association, and you have a pretty robust coalition in opposition to a a renewable measure. Why? Well, the measure enscribes some flawed legislation into law, and changes require a 2/3 vote of the Legislature.
Peep the flip for a quick summary of those objections.
If you saw the Olympics last night, you might have seen the bold new ad by Al Gore's "We" campaign:
Today, the "We" Campaign launched a new national television ad aimed at promoting the campaign's challenge to repower America -- by generating 100 percent of America's electricity from truly clean sources within 10 years.
The ad, entitled "Switch," (http://www.wecansolveit.org/switch) features Americans of all backgrounds -- rural and urban, blue collar and white collar -- making the change from fossil fuels to cleaner, renewable forms of energy by symbolically "turning on" a giant, 25-foot light switch. Actor William H. Macy narrates the ad.
"America's three great national challenges -- our economy, national security and climate change -- can all be addressed by switching to renewable energy," said Cathy Zoi, CEO of the nonpartisan Alliance for Climate Protection, which is managing the "We" Campaign. "The Olympics are a time for all Americans to reflect on our nation's achievements and what we as a people can do together. Choosing the right path and repowering our nation is something we can do, and something that will benefit us all."
Just as "change" is the key word in this election and mistaking the mood of the electorate helped cost Hillary Clinton and her supporters the nomination, the key word for the next cycle is likely to be "switch" and misjudging the electorate will have the same results.
I have little doubt that Senator Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic Nominee had it not been for her caving to right wing talking points and voting for the Iraq War. Being on the wrong side the the biggest foreign policy disaster in a generation is what advanced her career from inevitable nominee to junior senator. At the time, many of us in the netroots were flabbergasted, we knew it was a disastrous course of action and came to the conclusion that those who sided with George Bush and the neocons either had no grasp of the situation or were doing it for as a purely political calculation (and a poor one at that as Clinton discovered).
Iraq was the single biggest foreign policy decision, but when it comes to the global climate crisis, I'm getting a sense of déjà vu from the positioning and language used by San Francisco Mayor and 2010 California Gubernatorial hopeful Gavin Newsom as to why he's siding with PG&E against the Sierra Club on clean, renewable energy.
The first campaign I worked for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom was waaaaay back in 2000. And if you ask me, a good deal of his perception problems are that he is over scripted, over protected, over done. I think the most likely way for Mayor Newsom to win the 2010 Gubernatorial campaign is if they let Newsom be Newsom. His handlers don't have to be defensive, but when they are it shows. Like this:
I just asked Newsom if he would support the Clean Energy Act. At first, he said yes -- absolutely. Then he said, "oh are you talking about the one about PG&E?" I said yes. He said, "oh no it's horrible." I asked him to elaborate, but he would not. I then asked, "is that because your consultant [Eric Jaye] is working for PG&E?" Newsom denied it, but really. It was kinda pathetic.
Ouch. Paul Hogarth has more at Beyond Chron. Why can't he just stop trying to calculate by what he's told and follow his gut? It worked for Marriage Equality.
Al Gore believes we can have the entire country go with clean electrical energy in a decade and Newsom is going to oppose the "can do City" doing the same by 2040? Ouch.
As you've all seen by now, Al Gore is saying we need to go clean within 10 years. That is why he showed up at Netroots Nation. Today, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is launching his campaign for Governor online at the Netroots Nation conference in Austin. But the big question for Newsom is whether he is a third as committed as to fighting Global Warming as Gore. You see, there is a potential ballot initiative in San Francisco to go 100% green, not in 10 years, but by 2040: The Clean Energy Act. Sounds common sense for a gubernoratorial candidate to support you think, but Newsom's consultant is already blanketing the city with lies about the idea of San Francisco kicking the habit. Tim Redmond says in this week's San Francisco Bay Guardian:
A progressive measure that would make San Francisco one of the greenest cities in the nation will be on the ballot this fall. It's designed to lower energy costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote green-collar jobs. It has all the elements that Mayor Gavin Newsom has been talking about in his high-profile speeches, press conferences, and celebrity appearances. It's a perfect vehicle for a mayor who wants to stand out as a candidate for governor of California. It has the backing of some of Newsom's close allies, like state Sen. Mark Leno.
That's why Newsom ought to support the Clean Energy Act.
Indeed. As a young San Franciscan who will deal with the fallout of Global Warming, I hope Newsom will follow the best practices of hundreds of cities. Cause you do what you've done and you'll get what you've got -- PG&E has shown they are far more interested in greenwashing than green jobs and green energy. I want to see this pass, I'd even be willing to work on it despite not working on a citywide in SF since working for Newsom's first mayoral election. Will he greenwash today or lead 1/3 as much as Al Gore?
UPDATE: So Newsom gave a great speech supporting exactly what the Clean Energy Act will do. So will he side with his political consultants or with his beliefs on moving towards clean energy? Will he support the Clean Energy Act?
