This fall, California voters will vote on Proposition 23, officially termed a “suspension” of California's global warming law (AB32) “until unemployment reaches 5.5%” and named by its supporters a “jobs initiative.”
The battle should play out exactly as similar battles over federal climate policies: conservatives claim it'll destroy jobs, raise taxes, and increase family energy costs; environmentalists valiantly-yet-unsuccessfully try to set the record straight, only to be ignored by middle class voters worried about pocketbook issues.
But a funny thing is happening.
The narrative is shaping up to be quite different. The shadowy interests behind Prop 23 are being exposed to the light. And Prop 23 is being opposed by clean technology investors who see a stark choice: build the future or burn the planet.
Consider it evidence of hope.
In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act, commonly known as AB32, which established the first-in-the-world comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases. Conservatives have been whining about it ever since it passed; hence, Proposition 23. Officially, it's been placed on the ballot by Assemblymember Dan Logue, who calls it a “jobs initiative.” But calling it a jobs initiative doesn't make it true, and calling it Logue's proposition only conceals the out of state dirty energy interests behind Proposition 23.
- Behind Proposition 23: Out-of-State Oil and Coal
Who's really paying for Prop 23? Short answer: Valero Energy of Texas, Tesoro of Texas, and Koch Industries of oil/gas/coal/Americans for Prosperity fame.
Valero has given over $4 million of the nearly $6.2 million received by the Yes on 23 campaign, and Tesoro is in for $525,000. A shadowy Missouri conservative group with ties to coal whose spokesman criticizes “liberal politicians” in California with “crazy radical ideas” has donated $500,000, even though last December it only had $109 in its bank account. A ThinkProgress blog post links Koch Industries to the “yes on Prop 23” forces.
A Sunlight Foundation investigation of donations 1998-2008 found that Big Oil's money at the state level goes mostly to influence public, not politicians; money is spent on elections, not contributions. Prop 23 fits that mold.
- Opposing Proposition 23: The Future
Of course, environmentalists are appalled by any effort to roll back AB32. However, serious money is coming from other sources. Venture capitalist John Doerr has given $500,000 to the “No” campaign; Farallon founder Tom Steyer has pledged $5 million. Silicon Valley venture capitalist Vinod Khosla states: “Proposition 23 will kill markets and the single largest source of job growth in California in the last two years. Not only that, it'll kill investment in the long term for creating the next 10 Googles.” Small wonder that the cleantech industry opposes Prop 23.
In 2009, 40 percent of cleantech venture capital went to California, where some 12,000 companies are working on ways that could help businesses and consumers reduce energy consumption. More than 500,000 people work in the industry, including 93,000 in manufacturing and 68,000 in construction. Clean energy jobs are growing in California at 10 times the statewide average. For job-related reasons, the San Jose Mercury News editorial page urges a no vote.
Big Oil may be meeting its match in Google.
Perhaps sensing a loser, Meg Whitman is waffling on Prop 23.
The fall campaign season hasn't yet started, and optimism may be premature. However, a Proposition 23 defeat would be the first sign of optimism on the climate front I've seen since the climate bill died. The good clean energy jobs are already here in California. Investors know it. Our economy will not only survive regulation of greenhouse gases, it'll flourish. Let's hope the climate peacocks of the United States Senate listen. In the meantime, courtesy of Climate Progress, here's five actions to take:
1.Visit the “No on 23″ website, learn the facts & sign up: Stop Dirty Energy
2.Educate yourself on how California’s climate & energy laws have created companies & jobs: CABrightSpot
3.Tell your friends by email, on Facebook, at work, & everywhere else.
4.Participate in the debate. Write letters to the editor and post comments on blogs & websites.
5.Contribute here. The other side’s leader, right-wing California Assemblyman Dan Logue, has publicly said he expects the oil companies to spend $50 million.
I’ll vote against 23 and I try and convince My relatives too, But their mostly Republicans and I’m not.
may just be what is needed to revive the stalled energy debate in Congress.
California used to lead the world in technical innovation, with that comes good jobs and high quality of life.
If you want CA to become a leader in clean tech and get those good jobs, you need to vote NO on 23.
Do-goodism in politics just doesn’t work so well. 23 isn’t about “saving the environment” or “loving gaia” or any of that hippy dippy stuff, it’s about whether or not CA becomes a leading technology center for clean tech, or whether we let the Chinese and the Euros have the business.
Thanks for all the great information. I know defeating this turkey is already shaping up to be a focus for quite a few of the grassroots groups I work with.
OK. One thing I am not skeptical about is global warming–that is clearly settled science. The problems are severe, getting worse and we don’t have very much time before we cannot do anything.
I am a little skeptical about the scope and effectiveness of AB32. The opponents of Prop 23 say (correctly) that California leads the nation in green jobs and innovation in green energy, but then they give credit to AB32 for that fact. CARB has gotten through their scoping projects (which I think is totally inadequate) and they are currently writing regulations. We might have some small idea how AB32 will impact particular industries, but we really don’t know what it means yet.
To say that AB32 has already brought us green jobs and green innovation is laughable. The smart money knows that the future of energy is green and their investments in safe, renewable energy could bring huge returns in the near future. They didn’t need AB32 to reach that conclusion.
When all the regs are written on AB32, we might find some results that we didn’t anticipate. What will farmers have to do to comply. What about truckers. What about manufacturers. We just don’t know right now and so we really cannot say that the impact will be minor.
We do know that if we put all this effort into reducing our GHG emissions, and get down to the 1990 level by 2020, we will have barely scratched the surface. If AB32 was a national effort and not a state effort, I would have much more confidence that the efforts were worth it.
The one undeniable argument that the opponents of Prop 23 make that is AB32 has put California in a leadership role in terms of addressing GHG. The CARB is wrestling with the small but necessary details of how to reduce emmissions from our daily lives.
That is certainly worth something, but I am concerned that we are overstating the benefits (particularly the pre-implementation benefits) and understating the costs.
I am certain about one thing: returning Barbara Boxer to the US Senate is the most important thing we can do to fight global warming. The solution to this problem is likely in Washington, probably Beijing and almost certainly not in Sacramento.