It was hard to follow what was in and out of the budget in those final hours, but as it turned out, the oil severance tax, which at some point was part of the negotiations, ended up out of it. So we remain the only oil-producing state in the country to not charge corporations for taking our natural resources out of the ground. Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico is trying to change that by introducing a bill that would tax oil companies and use the proceeds to fund higher education. This was first reported on John Myers' Twitter feed, but now California Chronicle has a full report.
With California spending almost as much incarcerating inmates in prisons as it does educating students in higher education, Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico introduced legislation today to expand funding for community colleges, the California State University and University of California.
"California is on the wrong track heading in the wrong direction," Majority Leader Torrico said. "Our prisons are overflowing and yet we are turning away students at our universities. The Master Plan for Higher Education is becoming a distant memory. This is not a sustainable path for California. We must invest more in higher education. It is a solid down payment on our economic future."
The recently passed state budget contained a 10 percent across the board cut for the UC and CSU systems and reductions for community colleges.
The increased funding from the bill, AB 656, would be derived from a severance tax on oil extracted within California. California, the third-largest oil producing state in the country, is the only state where oil is extracted without a tax.
"My bill will bring California in line with more than 20 other oil-extracting states," Torrico said. "When other states are charging over 12 percent from multi-billion dollar oil companies, we should be doing more to receive funds for our natural resources."
While I'd rather put the money into the General Fund rather than a specific sector, I can't imagine a more rational and simple idea. Nevertheless, I'm sure the Yacht Party will try to block it, as they did successfully last year. That can be a useful vote for the future ("Which side are you on, students or the oil companies"), but it does nothing to move us forward. Only by ending the conservative veto can common-sense solutions like this help California progress.
The State Lands Commission scuttled a proposed compromise that would have brought new oil drilling to the Santa Barbara coast for the first time in California since 1969, in what is seemingly a victory for environmental and coastal protection advocates. However, some are arguing that the proposal, which would have mandated closure of 4 additional oil platforms off the coast within 13 years, should have gone through.
But a parade of local officials, residents and environmental activists insisted the plan would have advanced efforts to protect the coast by eventually closing four of the region's 20 platforms.
"For the first time in history, the public and the state will be able to shut down existing oil production," argued Linda Krop, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Center and one of the people behind the proposal. "Without this project, they'll continue indefinitely -- perhaps another 40 years." [...]
Nineteen of the 20 platforms that dot the ocean off Santa Barbara and Ventura counties are in federal waters. Shuttering four of them, says Krop of the Environmental Defense Center, would make it difficult for the federal government to lease underwater tracts accessible from those platforms.
And with closure of the two processing plants, the prospect would have been more unlikely, she said.
Read the whole article. There was a significant green alliance in favor of this drilling-for-closure exchange. I tend to agree with the Lands Commission that the proposal for closure wasn't completely enforceable, but then, that's their job to write the law with some enforcement, isn't it? (I guess their concern is that these are federal waters and the state would be limited to enforce end-dates.) I also understand John Garamendi's stated rationale, that approving one lease would set off a parade of oil companies coming to sully the coast, but off course those are approved on a case-by-case basis as well.
If we're going to talk seriously about drilling off the coast in the future, there should be at least a couple bright lines - closure deals like this, and the implementation of an oil severance tax so that we're not the only state in the country that doesn't charge a fee to industry for taking our natural resources out of the ground.
It's an interesting debate - legislators are split, with coastal Assemblymembers opposing but the locals in Santa Barbara in favor, and even Lois Capps thinks it's a worthwhile deal. Endless oil and gas concerns off the coast ought to be dealt with, it's a good question to ask whether this is the right way.
Some great people have been sashaying through the Big Tent to huddle up with the bloggers. And the traditional media has joined them, to take exciting pictures of people typing to show how the bloggers kick it. Rockin'!
I did get a chance to spend a few minutes with Van Jones, an environmental and green jobs activist, to talk about the future of energy and how we can beat the Republicans at their own game. He also offered a candid assessment of the state of the Presidential campaign.
Jones thinks that the progressive movement and Democratic groups have been "hurt by having a good candidate. We were so galvanized against Bush in 2004 that every outside group went nuts, threw everything we had at the Republicans, and we almost came up with the win despite a less inspiring candidate. This year, the spirit of 2004 has been lost. Obama made the mistake of defunding the outside groups and we've become complacent to an extent." Jones said that last week's hit by the Obama campaign on the McCain housing issue was good, but it needs to be a 10-week phenomenon, not a 1-week phenomenon.
On green jobs, which is Jones' real focus area, he stressed that we need to move the environmental conversation from a cultural one to a political one. The green-collar economy "can be a place for people to earn money, not spend money. We need collective action for green citizenship, to create the jobs of the future in a Green New Deal. As long as carbon is free we're never going to move forward." He was pleased by the recent efforts by municipalities and states (green jobs bills have been passed in Massachusetts and Washington state, and the US Conference of Mayors is on board as well), but recognizes that the federal government must be involved as well. "This is about laws, not gizmos. Technology cannot be the savior. This has to be a bottom-up, inside-outside AND a top-down strategy. If the Feds are MIA, human life will be MIA in the future."
We talked about the offshore drilling debate, where Jones clearly stated that the Republicans won the day by lying to the American people. He had three major points:
• There is no such thing as American oil. There is oil drilled by multinationals that is sent overseas to China and India. American offshore driling will do nothing to solve any American oil problems.
• We banned drilling in offshore areas not to save birds and fish, but because of coastal families and coastal communities, because kids were walking into the water and coming out with oil on them, because property values were plunging. Democrats should not be willing to throw away America's beauty for a 2-cent solution in 10 years.
• We've seen the new phenomenon of the "dirty greens," who want to have an "all of the above strategy" on energy, with solar and wind, but also clean coal and drilling offshore and shale and all these dirty polluters. "All of the above" is not a strategy. It's not a wise choice, but a stupid swipe at a persistent problem.
Democrats are right on price - if you cut demand and expand supply through renewables, the price will drop. They are right on people, because those steps will create millions of jobs. And they're right on the planet, because it's the only solution to preserve our environmental future. What the Republicans are offering is Happy Meal Politics, the kind of politics that offers everything for free with no residual consequences.
Jones is a great messenger, and a real leader in the green movement. Democrats would do well to listen to him.
It's really beyond the point of tolerance for Bush Dog Jim Costa, who represents the district with the worst well-being in America for its residents. As Republicans dishonestly try to bully Democrats with their meaningless "Drill Now" chant, despite the fact that offshore drilling wouldn't lower gas prices and would do nothing to secure the energy future of the nation, Costa has joined up with a bipartisan group seeking a "compromise" (read: giving in to Republican fantasies) on energy.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers seeking to craft a compromise on energy legislation includes politically vulnerable members, according to a partial list of members obtained by The Hill.
Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) and John Peterson (R-Pa.), who organized the group, have kept the list of participants under wraps since the recent announcement of its formal launch.
Abercrombie and Peterson previously indicated the complete list of members would be released last week but later reconsidered, saying certain members could be face political problems if their names were released.
Reps. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), Gene Green (D-Texas), Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.), Nick Lampson (D-Texas), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), Dan Boren (D-Okla.) and Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) are part of the group, according to the list.
The group met on Wednesday [...]
The bill that is being crafted breaks significantly from Democratic leadership on the topic of offshore drilling.
Boren, Costa, Green, Lampson and Nunes twice voted no on the Democratic leadership's "use it or lose it" energy drilling bill.
It'd be one thing if Costa were actually a "vulnerable member," but his "opponent" this year, Jim Lopez, has no records with the FEC, hasn't updated his campaign website in a month and a half and hasn't had an event in the district since March. Costa is about as vulnerable as Iron Man. So one must conclude that he plans to sell out the Democratic Party on energy as a matter of principle.
It is completely absurd to open up the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling when there are over 60 million acres of leased public land lying fallow. The last people with any interest in lowering gas prices are oil execs; they want offshore leases so they can keep them in reserve and tell their stockholders how much cash they're sitting on. So Costa simply wants to enrich oil company bigwigs at the expense of the middle class, and ignore the serious risk to the planet in stalling on departing from the failed energy policy of the past. This man shouldn't dare even call himself a Democrat after the work he's done in the 110th Congress.
Today Americans United for Change, the progressive advocacy group that is visiting districts throughout the country on the "Bush Legacy Tour," hammered David Dreier for being a tool to Big Oil and special interests. From their release:
With gas prices above $4, Americans United for Change, the progressive issue-advocacy group that recently launched its national Bush Legacy Bus tour, blasted Rep. David Drier today for standing in the way of lower gas prices for California families by voting against meaningful legislation to release 70 million barrels of light, sweet crude oil from the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve into the open market and replace it with heavy, sour oil that is tougher to refine - a move that has historically brought down gas prices and strengthened our national security.
The SPR has been tapped or suspended before by the current President Bush, President Clinton, and the first President Bush and each time oil has been released the impact on prices has been dramatic and immediate. For example, in 1991, oil prices immediately dropped by 33 percent. The 2000 exchange drove oil prices down by 19 percent. And the release by President Bush in 2005 resulted in a 9 percent drop.
"With gas prices hovering above $4 a gallon, Rep. Dreier was given a chance today bring real relief now to California families forced to make incredible sacrifices choosing between bills, gas, and food," said Caren Benjamin, for Americans United for Change. "But without apology or question, Congressman Dreier chose to put his loyalty to Bush and his addiction to big oil cash ahead of relief for struggling Californians."
I don't know if the "Free Our Oil" campaign and focusing on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is the most effective message, but clearly somebody has to show some leadership on the energy front. Contrary to popular beliefs, Democrats are NOT being pushed out of this debate. In a recent poll by The Wilderness Society, the public is split on the question of drilling or protecting arctic lands and offshore areas, and they believe 76%-19% that the best way to secure our energy future is to invest in new technologies and renewable sources rather than continue to drill. In addition, by a 63%-31% score, those polled believe that the President's proposal to open up ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling "is more likely to enrich oil companies than to lower gas prices for American consumers." That's why it's so crucial for AUFC to note that David Dreier has taken $129,400 in contributions from oil company executives over the years.
There's starting to be some real pushback on this "drill now" blather. The Democrats put forward this SPR bill today and most Republicans took the bait of voting against it. Jimmy Hoffa Jr. of the Teamsters, in a real game-changer of a move, came out with a very strong statement rejecting "drilling our way out" of this crisis, and demanding long-term energy solutions. Democratic Congressional candidate John Boccieri from Ohio made this amusing Web video to mock his opponent's reliance on drilling:
And just to your left, CA-46's Debbie Cook has put together a comprehensive 10-point plan to realize Al Gore's vision of receiving 100% of our electricity from renewables by 2018.
There's work to be done - by candidates, policy wonks, advocacy groups, and regular people - but together we can beat back these shortsighted solutions and expose those who want to wed our energy needs to the failures of the past.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said today he opposes lifting a ban on new oil drilling in coastal waters, breaking with President Bush and Republican presidential candidate John McCain.
He called California's coastline "an international treasure" that must be protected by a federal oil-drilling moratorium that has been in place for 27 years.
"We're serious about that, and we're not going to change that," he told reporters and business executives at BIO International, an annual biotechnology industry conference in San Diego.
Schwarzenegger, who has endorsed McCain's presidential bid, said the federal offshore drilling ban was not to blame for soaring gas prices. In a statement issued earlier in the day, the governor said technological innovations and expanded fuel choices for consumers ultimately will lead the way to reduced fuel costs.
"We are in this situation because of our dependence on traditional petroleum-based oil," Schwarzenegger said in the statement, which referred only to Bush's call for lifting the ban and did not mention McCain.
He missed mass transit and smarter, more dense development, but in the main Arnold is right. Sen. Feinstein and Speaker Bass are quoted in the article as well dismissing the notion of offshore development as a stunt. GOP wingnut-in-charge Dave Cogdill, on the other hand, has a catch phrase:
"Personally, yes, I believe we need to be drilling in our own reserves," Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, said today during a news conference related to the state budget. "We need to use the resources available to us in this country."
He said it would reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil and would help drive down the cost of gasoline.
"So I am a very strong supporter, as I think most of my caucus is, in the catch phase 'Drill here, drill now, pay less,'" Cogdill said. "It's certainly a better energy policy relating to the needs of the citizens of the United States."
Except there's little to drill, the oil companies don't want to do any drilling but want the reserves to line their pockets, and the structural problem with a carbon-based economy lingers.
So the real slogan is, "Drill here. Drill now. Run out sooner. Get no benefits for 10 years."
So as expected, Assembly Republicans killed a bill that would bring California in line with every other oil-extracting state and charge obscenely rich oil companies for taking our natural resources out of the ground.
With gasoline prices soaring, legislation to slap the oil industry with higher taxes died in the Assembly late Wednesday in the latest party-line battle over the state's beleaguered budget.
Republicans killed the two-pronged oil tax proposed by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, which they considered a threat to the state's economy as well as political gamesmanship meant more for public relations than problem solving.
In turn, Núñez said at a news conference before the vote that the GOP could not continue to push "knee-jerk, no-tax rhetoric" without coming to grips with its effect on schools and other public services.
Speaker Núñez is in a tough spot, faced with a recalcitrant Yacht & Oil Party who is wedded to failed ideology. The best he can do is to continue to offer these proposals, argue forcefully for them, and hold the opposition accountable for their votes in November. On a blogger conference call earlier today, the Speaker talked about PTA members from red districts coming to the Capitol to protest these extreme education cuts. The Yacht & Oil Party will absolutely face a backlash if they keep this up. Democrats are making the differences clear, and that's the best we can hope for at the moment.
Another thing - what exactly is up with this argument from the Yacht & Oil Party that the Speaker timed his proposal to coincide with layoff notices from school districts? I didn't realize that POLITICS was out of bounds in the political arena. Of course it coincided; the only way you get people in this state to pay attention to what's happening in Sacramento is by taking advantage of opportunities to show the stark philosophical differences. Saying that "you're not allowed to tell people the consequences of our policies" is a loser argument for a loser party.
The idea that California is now immune to any pushback from the fossil fuel industry because we're so enlightened about global warming and determined to do something about it should take a hit with this story, published by McClatchy, about Occidental Petroleum trying to pull a Daniel Plainview and dig up a national monument.
A subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum has notified the Bureau of Land Management that it would like to explore for oil in a central California national monument.
John Dearing, a BLM spokesman, said the agency can do nothing to stop Vintage Production from testing for oil under the Carrizo Plain National Monument in eastern San Luis Obispo County because the company has owned the mineral rights there since before President Bill Clinton created the monument in 2001.
"Because this is a national monument, there will be environmental concerns that will have to be strongly looked at," Dearing said. "But they have a right to access."
This is in almost precisely the region described in P.T. Anderson's Oscar-nominated epic. The oil company bought up the rights and is now asserting the ability to drill despite the landmark status.
Oh by the way, this area is home to the largest concentration of endangered species anywhere in the country.
There is no cone of invincibility around California. As sure as the coal industry has wormed its way into sponsoring every Presidential debate on CNN and blanketing states like Ohio with messaging that "coal is good for America," the oil industry will continue to drill in the name of "keeping us off foreign oil" and "securing our energy future." There are battles ahead and there shouldn't be any resting upon laurels.
Some of these items may have been covered here, some not, but I didn't get to post a lot throughout the week, so here's some fresh meat (apologies to CMR) for those interested in Golden State politics:
Jamie Court and Judy Dugan of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights pen an extremely troubling piece today about Big Oil, particularly Chevron, outright buying our government and its leaders. This is not limited to Republicans, but certainly the Governor is the biggest recipient of this largesse.
Take Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who once claimed that he was so rich he did not need anyone else's money - and who isn't running for another office. Yet as gasoline prices were breaking last year's record of $3.38 a gallon, Schwarzenegger collected a $100,000 check May 1 from Chevron, the West's largest refiner. The company certainly had the cash on hand. Just three days earlier, it reported a $4.7-billion first-quarter profit, up 18% over the same period last year.
The contribution brought Schwarzenegger's take from Chevron to $665,000 (making it his 15th largest donor) since 2003, and his total political tribute from the energy industry is now $4 million. According to a recent Schwarzenegger fundraising solicitation, Chevron's $100,000 buys the company special briefings with the governor, something that beleaguered motorists aren't getting.
In all, oil companies delivered $90 MILLION dollars to political campaigns and parties in 2006, and while a lot of that went to block the corporate tax-for-alternative energy Prop. 87, plenty was spread around to political leaders and parties. And that seed money ensures that there is no investigation into practices like this (over):
