(Written by Jenesse Miller and cross-posted from Groundswell, the California League of Conservation Voters blog.)

Listen up, candidates for office in California: Independent voters care about the environment.

A groundbreaking new statewide poll of California voters who decline-to-state (DTS) an affiliation with any political party reveals the strong environmental and other progressive values of this poorly-understood but growing bloc of voters. The poll was commissioned by the California League of Conservation Voters Education Fund  (CLCV Education Fund), CLCV's sister organization and the non-partisan voter engagement arm of the environmental movement in California. The research was conducted by widely-respected polling firm Tulchin Research.

This in-depth survey is the first of its kind to explore in detail DTS (or independent) voters' opinions on many of today’s most controversial issues and that is being shared with the broader public.

With DTS voters increasing from 15 to 20 percent of California’s electorate just since 2006, the purpose of the public opinion survey was to better understand this influential swing and rapidly growing voter group and its attitudes toward environmental issues and other timely topics.

Capitol Weekly was one of the first to cover the results of this groundbreaking poll:

Two out of three of California’s decline-to-state voters consider themselves conservationists, believe climate change is a growing problem that needs to be addressed and say environmental regulations provide critical protections for air, land and water, according to a new survey.

The statewide survey commissioned by the California League of Conservation Voters Education Fund is “the first of its kind to explore in detail DTS voters’ opinions on many of today’s most controversial issues and that is being shared with the broader public,” the group said in releasing the results.

The survey found that DTS voters are solidly pro-environment and support a wide range of conservation policies:

• Two-thirds (65 percent) consider themselves to be “conservationists”.
• Notably, DTS voters agree climate change is occurring and is a major problem that needs to be addressed by a 2-to-1 margin (63 percent).
• When DTS voters were asked about their opinions on environmental regulations made by our lawmakers, an overwhelming 69 percent believe environmental regulations provide an important benefit to our society and help to protect our air, land and water. In contrast, just 1-in 5 DTS voters (21 percent) believe environmental regulations do more harm than good.

Warner Chabot, CEO of CLCV Education Fund (and CEO of CLCV), stated in a press conference today that candidates for office in California ignore the results of this poll “at their peril,” noting that in the last decade decline-to-state voters have doubled in size, comprise the majority of swing voters, and are the fastest-growing voter bloc in California.

Considering the new dynamics of California elections, including redistricting and the new top-two primary where independent voters could swing the results one way or another, many political experts believe there are more state Assembly and  Senate districts up for grabs in the 2012 elections than in any year in the past two decades. According to the most recent report from the secretary of state, about 3.5 million California voters declined to state a political preference. “This nonpartisan group of voters now holds considerable electoral power,” said Warner.

Pollster and Tulchin Research President Ben Tulchin stated:

“I was impressed with just how consistent and intense DTS voters in California were in their pro-environment and progressive values. These survey results clearly indicate to any candidate running for office in California today that strongly supporting tough laws to protect our air, land and water is a very effective way to win over DTS voters.”

CLCV Education Fund Vice-President Dr. H. Eric Schockman added:

“The progressive and pro-environment values exhibited by this influential and growing segment of our state’s electorate will have profound implications for the future of environmental protections and public health in California in 2012 and beyond.”

Survey Methodology
From October 27 – November 2, 2011, Tulchin Research conducted a telephone survey among 600 likely Decline-to-State voters in California using live, professional interviewers. The margin of error for this survey is +/- 4.0 percentage points.

About the California League of Conservation Voters Education Fund
CLCVEF’s mission is to protect California's natural resources and to improve the health of our communities. Its strategy is three-fold: increase the impact of organizations in the conservation, public health and environmental justice communities; conduct public education campaigns that connect voters’ environmental values to the democratic process; and promote nonpartisan civic engagement efforts to increase the participation of conservation voters in underrepresented communities. Find out more at www.clcvedfund.org.

The entire publicly-available results of the poll can be viewed here.

(Cross-posted from Living in the O.)

When Occupy Oakland first started, I was skeptical and frankly unimpressed. I stopped by the rally on that first Monday at 4pm and was underwhelmed by the turnout. At most, a couple hundred people were there. The rally took place on the corner of 14th and Broadway and the sound system (or maybe just a bullhorn) wasn’t loud enough and it was difficult to hear. I chatted with some friends I ran into and went back to work.

Day by day tents went up in Frank Ogawa Plaza and I became much less underwhelmed, especially once infrastructure was developed. The occupiers organized a communal kitchen, library, schedule of events, and of course port-o-potties. I work in Frank Ogawa Plaza so passed the encampment every day, often multiple times per day. I appreciated that it was mostly quiet during the day and amplified sound never started until 4 or 5pm. At night I felt safer walking around in the area, as there were tons of people around. I developed an admiration for the occupation and defended the occupiers to friends who were frightened and annoyed by the encampment.

Yet I was still skeptical. I expressed to many that while I thought the Occupy movement was doing a great job changing the dialogue in our country, it wasn’t a movement I could participate in because I didn’t understand the end game. I’ve taken part in much advocacy and several movements, and I’ve always had a clear goal in mind (even if it was a goal I knew wouldn’t be attained for many years, like stopping the federal attacks on medical marijuana – a goal I chipped away at for nearly a decade and which still hasn’t been met).

I didn’t understand the goals of Occupy Oakland. Did they just plan to occupy our municipal plaza forever? What would constitute victory? Without understanding the end game, no matter how much I respected what Occupy Oakland was doing, I didn’t see a point in participating.

My skepticism started to fade a week ago, when I woke up on Tuesday morning to hundreds of tweets and dozens of stories about the police raid of Occupy Oakland. It hit me that morning, sitting at home, how much people had been putting themselves on the line for something they believed in. That was something I can relate to, as I developed and grew as an activist under the wings of two amazing mentors who firmly believed in the power of non-violent direct action and civil disobedience.

My admiration for the occupiers and their supporters grew on Tuesday night, as I watched from the safety of my home the horror that occurred in downtown Oakland. Many people withstood multiple rounds of teargassing  (and some much worse), yet they stood their ground for their right to occupy Frank Ogawa Plaza and stood up against the jailing of their fellow occupiers.

By Wednesday, I realized something big was happening, especially when I saw thousands of people gather in Frank Ogawa Plaza at night. Still though, I was just a spectator. I watched the general assembly and left before folks split up into groups, going home to follow what was happening on Twitter.

But I was drawn in enough to come back on Thursday night. I planned to just watch again, but when I arrived at 6pm for the general strike planning meeting, almost immediately groups split off to plan things like media, outreach, and logistics. So I joined the (huge) media team and just listened – there were dozens of people and with so much process, little seemed to be getting done. Finally a few people suggested we split into smaller groups, and we did. I joined the group to work on the general strike press release and press conference and am so glad I did.

I was blown away by our group of about 15 people and have been continually impressed by them over the past several days. About 2/3 of the participants were media professionals – several worked for independent media outlets, a few of us did media work for non-profits or campaigns, one guy worked at Pandora, another worked for an ad agency. We talked about what we needed to do for the media advisory, press release and press conference. And I say we for the first time because all of a sudden I was no longer a spectator. I hadn’t planned to, but I was participating.

I woke up the next morning to an email from one of the participants with a link to an online workspace she had built for us to use. All of us had equal access to this workspace. By mid-day two women had drafted the advisory and press release. A few of us met again that evening and further hammered out details, deciding that we needed to identify some Occupy Oakland storytellers (since there are no official spokespeople for Occupy Oakland). I went home and put together a media contact list and uploaded it to the workspace. And over the weekend people in our group met some more (I was unable to join them but appreciated reading the notes). They planned the general strike press conference that happened yesterday afternoon and sent out a media advisory.

The press conference, which I attended yesterday, was a huge success. (If you missed it, you can watch the video of it here.) The speakers were all incredibly powerful and shared their stories of why they’re taking part in the general strike. One woman’s home was being foreclosed by Chase bank, another woman was an educator who was frustrated by the diminishing funding for education, and someone from the ILWU union spoke about the issues facing workers and about Oakland’s 1946 general strike. I was amazed that in just four days a small group of people – most of whom had never even met – were able to pull this off.

Being involved in this small group made me remember that the end goal isn’t the only important part of a social movement. The process itself can be very powerful.

Occupy Oakland has brought together thousands of activists and Oakland residents, many of whom probably never would have worked together otherwise. It’s brought media attention to the economic inequities in our country and in our city. The small number of people who have committed acts of vandalism and violence during Occupy marches have spurred a much larger group of people to organize as peacekeepers, and they were incredibly effective at keeping the peace during Saturday night’s march.

I must admit that I still don’t know what the end game is for Occupy Oakland. I don’t know what it would take for occupiers to feel like they have met enough goals for them to end the occupation.

But I’m okay with that, especially since I’m not planning to camp with Occupy Oakland. At this point I’m satisfied with participating in ways that make sense to me, like helping with media, donating books to the library, and tweeting as much as I can about what’s happening.

Because that’s the beauty of the Occupy movement. Everyone can participate in their own way, and that might not even involve coming to Frank Ogawa Plaza or taking off work for the general strike.

I love what one small, locally owned business is doing, for example. Awaken Cafe is staying open tomorrow during the general strike but will be donating 10% of its sales to the Alameda County Community Food Bank and 10% to the Ella Baker Center. That is Awaken’s way of standing up for the 99%.

Yesterday, I talked to one of the volunteers who’s organized Occupy Oakland’s library. He works at the Oakland Public Library and will not be striking tomorrow because he feels it’s important for the libraries to continue to serve the people of Oakland.

I hope you’ll join me tomorrow, November 2nd at the general strike or will find your own way to support Occupy Oakland and the 99%. Join us at the mass gatherings at 14th & Broadway at 9am, 12pm and 5pm. Here’s the poster and you can find out more details on the strike web page.

Maybe you can’t strike tomorrow or don’t want to participate that way. Some are suggesting to buy nothing. I suggest buying locally. Skip Starbucks and go to your local coffee shop. Skip fast food and buy lunch at a local restaurant.

I know some Oaklanders who are very concerned about independent local businesses being targeted during the strike. I not only hope that that will not happen but will be participating to help ensure that it does not happen. On Saturday night a few dozen peacekeepers were able to stop violence and vandalism. Imagine what hundreds of us can do.

(Cross-posted from Groundswell, the California League of Conservation Voters blog.)

Every day for the past couple of weeks I've been checking Governor Brown's website to see if he's taken action on California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) and Green California's priority legislation. I've also been following press stories closely to look for hints on whether he's going to sign or veto particular bills. And most days, not much happens. On Monday though, Brown posted an update on bill signings and vetoes. I had almost reached the end of the list, thinking he again hadn't acted on any of our priority bills, when I saw something very sad – our governor had vetoed AB 650 (Blumenfield), which would have established a task force to find solutions to California's transit funding crisis.

Public transit is key to meeting California's greenhouse gas reduction and air quality goals.  In fact, a single person can reduce her greenhouse gas emissions by 4,400 pounds annually and cut production of deadly air pollutants by 90% if she takes public transport instead of driving alone.

With so much at stake, it would have been great if our existing state agencies and committees would have addressed this growing funding problem sooner, before it reached crisis level. But they haven't, which is why Assemblymember Bob Blumenfield authored AB 650. As he explained in a guest blog post last month:

Assembly Bill (AB) 650 establishes a blue ribbon task force to craft a public transportation development plan for California based on an assessment of what transit we have, what amount of transit we need, and how we can finance transit construction.  The task force will be composed of 12 experts in finance, transit, the environment, and public health who must complete their plan by September 30, 2012.  This work would be undertaken, in part, through workshops conducted across the state.  And, it would be financed from existing transit moneys provided through California's gas tax, specifically those devoted to transit planning.

The blue ribbon task force is a tried and true way to help California find solutions to complex and enduring problems, like public transportation.  In recent years, task forces have helped California enact comprehensive fisheries protections off our coast and achieve breakthrough reforms that balance our state's water supply needs with environmental protection.

To meet California’s greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, we must invest in transit to make it convenient for current riders and to attract new riders. This task force would have been a huge step in that direction so I am disappointed that Governor Brown vetoed AB 650. I hope though that he will urge the legislative transportation committees as well as the California Transportation Commission to focus on this incredibly important issue.

AB 650 was not signed into law, but the bill moved the conversation on transportation funding forward. For this I am incredibly grateful to Assemblymember Bob Blumenfield, CLCV members who took action on this bill, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and the allied Green California organizations that moved this bill forward.

(Cross-posted from Groundswell, the California League of Conservation Voters blog.)

Opposition by these groups entirely changed the dynamic in the Assembly. All of a sudden many legislators back off of supporting the bill. Senator Emmerson, while still supporting the bill, pulled out from being the bill's author, and Senator Leland Yee stepped in to sponsor the bill.

Our friends at TransForm started reaching out to swing assemblymembers to secure their support on the bill and we offered to help by generating calls into the swing districts. Here's what our Member Action Campaign Associate Bekah Barnett wrote about our part in this campaign:

Part of my role at CLCV is to manage the Membership Action Campaigns Program. This is when we determine which representatives are going to be the key swing votes on an issue, and then we call CLCV members in their districts and pass them through directly to leave a message for their representative. Recently, we were asked to help out with the passage of SB 582, with only one day to make calls before the vote. We were able to get 8 pass through calls to Joan Buchanan and 9 to Dr. Richard Pan. The next day, when the vote came up, they both voted in favor of the bill! That’s a 100% success rate! It feels great to be able to contribute to the passage of a bill that would so favorably impact people and the environment, especially when it’s a program that I have personally benefitted from and know would make a big difference for the state.

Because of our work and the work of several other environmental groups in the few days leading up to the vote, the Assembly passed the bill with a narrow margin of 47-28 votes. The vote was split entirely along party lines, despite the bipartisan support the bill had enjoyed in the Senate.

Clearly, the opposition of the Chamber and Taxpayers Association had scared many assemblymembers – particularly Republicans – from voting for this win-win bill. This influence was made even clearer when the bill returned to the Senate for a concurrence vote (since the bill had been slightly amended in the Assembly). The 36-2 vote in May turned into a 24-14 vote in July, and it split entirely along party lines, except for Senator Emmerson, who maintained his support for the bill.

The fate of SB 582 rests with Governor Jerry Brown, as the bill now sits on his desk awaiting a signature. If you want to see more commuter benefit programs – that save money for employers and employees and improve our air quality – implemented in California, call the Governor and urge him to sign SB 582: (916) 445-2841.

(Cross-posted from Groundswell, the California League of Conservation Voters blog.)

Five Senate Republicans are holding the state budget hostage and the ransom they are asking for is the gutting of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), our state’s flagship environmental law.

Their proposal would sharply limit the rights of California citizens and local government agencies to enforce critical environmental protections. (See a CLCV analysis of the proposal here).

The Los Angeles Times broke this story, and explained some of details of the proposal:

The proposal would sharply limit Californians' ability to go to court to challenge a construction project's environmental impact report — a document critical to final approval. The state attorney general would still be able to file such lawsuits.

Citizens would keep limited rights to file litigation, but only by making a deposit to the court of $50,000, or 1% of a construction project's costs if that amount is smaller.

Telecommunications companies seeking to expand their broadband networks would receive exemptions from environmental rules for related construction. Such a change would be a boon to firms like AT&T, which has contributed a total of $38,100 in campaign money to the five Republican senators since 2009.

CEQA was voted into law over 40 years ago in order to give all citizens a voice in what happens to their communities. For decades, CEQA has helped to keep major decisions over how to use local land at the local level—where the impacts are the greatest.

Because of the fact that CEQA has given citizens more transparency and more say over big, risky projects that impact the health and wellbeing of their community, it has been a prime target of attacks by those opposed to environmental protections. Year after year, these opponents use the state budget process to twist arms, call in favors, and try to make back-room deals to weaken CEQA.  This year is no exception.

If the California legislature and state agencies want to change our environmental laws, they have a process in place to do so—and do so in a transparent way. Those serious about changing California’s environmental laws should use the democratic process to debate them and to then make decisions they’ll be held accountable for.

The budget is no place for CEQA “reform.” We need to stand together and commit to strengthening the laws that protect our communities, not weaken them. The budget vote is ongoing so action is needed today. Email Governor Brown today to urge him to reject any effort to use the closed door budget process to extract major concessions to the public health, safety and environmental safeguards in CEQA.

(Cross-posted from Groundswell, the California League of Conservation Voters blog.)

We are so close to ensuring a clean energy future for California. Later this week, the California State Assembly will vote on Senate Bill (SB) 2X, which would increase renewable energy in California. With the help of nearly 700 emails and calls from California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) members, the State Senate passed SB 2X two weeks ago. Now we need you to take action to get the bill to Governor Brown's desk.

Because this bill is so important, CLCV launched a new tool this week to help you contact your legislators. Our new “click to call” feature makes calling your assemblymember simple. Just enter your phone number, and our system will dial your assemblymember for you. We provide a suggested script to make it easy. The whole process takes 2-3 minutes, and is so important since phone calls have a more powerful impact than emails to legislators.

SB 2X will put utilities on a path to 33% renewable energy by 2020. The mandates set by SB 2X will result in a reduction of global warming pollution from natural gas, oil, and coal power plants, and in improved air quality for California’s families.

A 33% renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for all utilities would continue to expand California’s renewable energy market and its clean technology industry, creating new green jobs for Californians. 

By 2020, a 33% RPS will result in 13,000 megawatts of new renewable power—enough to meet the electricity needs of 6 million typical homes. Action is needed now to make sure the opportunity doesn’t pass us by so please take a couple minutes and call your assemblymember today to urge support for renewable energy requirements.

(Cross-posted from Groundswell, the California League of Conservation Voters blog.)

This morning Assembly Speaker John Pérez and Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg announced the Clean Energy Jobs Initiative, a package of four bills that focus on green jobs and clean energy growth.

CLCV is excited to see the leaders of both houses focusing on the environment. We have not yet fully reviewed the proposed legislation so we're reserving comments on most of the package details.

The one bill we wholeheartedly support is Senator Simitian's 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) bill. We've been working on this issue for years because a 33% RPS would have huge environmental and economic impacts, including:

• displacing nearly 13 million metric tons of global warming emissions in 2020—equivalent to removing almost 3 million cars from the road, or enough to avoid 10 to 15 new large fossil fuel power plants;
• stimulating clean technology investment and innovation, and creating “green collar jobs;”
• diversifying the state’s energy supply and protecting consumers from natural gas price volatility;
• helping to meet our pollution cap under the Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32;
• promoting long-term planning for infrastructure needed to support high levels of renewable energy development; and
• improving air quality in vulnerable communities.

Thanks to Speaker John Pérez and President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg for continuing to lead on building a greener California. We look forward to working with them on this package and to passing RPS legislation in 2011!

 And while some sectors declined in the overall California economy, they grew in the green economy. Manufacturing stands out. Although manufacturing has declined in the state, green manufacturing jobs increased 10% from January 2008-2009.

The report's worth reading in full, as it breaks down numbers by region, sector, and more. Plus, it features lots of colorful graphs that make the numbers easier to digest, like this one:

It's clear from this report that green jobs are growing in importance to California's economy. Thanks to California voters, the overwhelming defeat of Prop 23 will keep the Golden State on a path that leads not to economic decline, but to job growth.

 (Cross posted at Medical Cannabis: Voices from the Frontlines, by my co-worker at Americans for Safe Access, George Pappas.)

We never expected that the DEA would defy the public statements of both the U.S. President and the Attorney General in such an arrogant and brazen way.

And yet on Wednesday, the Drug Enforcement Administration raided a legal, permitted San Francisco medical cannabis dispensing collective against the will of the President and the Department of Justice… and we need you to respond RIGHT NOW!

In early February national media attention exploded around statements from a White House spokesperson and from U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, telling the press that DEA raids would no longer continue, and that an end to such raids, according to Holder, was “now U.S. policy.”

And DEA’s response?

They thumbed their noses at the President and immediately raided a legal dispensing collective and, according to the San Francisco Police, did not even inform local cops! DEA claimed that the permit-holding dispensary was “violating state law,” but went on to say that evidence was “under seal” and could not be shared with the public.

The DEA is out of line and out of control, and this raid is nothing if not vindictive. Even if there was a violation of state law:

1. Why where there no arrests?
2. Why were local cops not involved?
3. Why are United States Federal Agents interpreting and enforcing California state law without consulting California officials?
4. Why was the collective not given due process through the proper authorities, but rather ransacked with a “smash and grab” raid?

DEA has twisted the words of the U.S. Attorney General, and thought that by saying publicly “they violated state law” that they could continue raiding whenever they want. Well that doesn’t fly. We DEMAND that the DEA stop immediately, and that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder reprimand DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart for her blatant insubordination and violation of the “new American policy.”

Now it’s up to you, and all it takes is two phone calls, one to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, and the other straight to the DEA.

Please call the U.S. Attorney General at (202) 353-1555 and say:

Hi, my name is _____________. First I want to thank you for your numerous public statements verifying the end of DEA raids on legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California. But on Wednesday the DEA went against your word and the word of the President of the United States by raiding a permitted dispensary in San Francisco. We respectfully demand that you issue a statement condemning and officially ending these raids until the Obama Administration has had a chance to review the new policy.

When you’re done, call the DEA at (202) 307-8000, ask for Administrator Michele Leonhart, and say:

Hi, my name is ___________. The U.S. Attorney General and the President of the United States have both made high-profile public statements, saying DEA raids on legal medical marijuana dispensaries is no longer U.S. policy. Yet your DEA raided a legal, permit-holding San Francisco dispensary yesterday, in conflict with these statements. This disgraceful and anti-democratic. Why is your agency not listening to the policy statements of our elected leaders and your boss? Is this how you’ll run DEA if you are appointed in the Obama Administration? We demand that you STOP it immediately!

Please forward this message to all your friends and family so that we can generate a response big enough to get officials to act!

(I work for Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy group.)

Yesterday, the DEA raided a medical marijuana dispensary in Culver City, spending hours on site detaining employees and ultimately leaving the facility in disarray. This is unfortunately not an unusal story. Since 2005, the DEA has raided dozens of state-sanctioned dispensaries in California.

But this time was different. We're used to the DEA calling in help from various federal agencies and local law enforcement. But I guess none of their usual buddies were available yesterday because from the picture below, which appeared in the LA Times today, it looks like they had to resort to calling in Blackwater:

The DEA often likes to say that medical marijuana is not their top priority (though at the height of the raids last year, they were raiding an average of one dispensary per week). They like to argue that medical marijuana raids do not take resources away from other drug interdiction. Yet this photo makes me wonder – if they have sufficient resources to shut down meth labs and to bust medical marijuana providers, why do they need the help of Blackwater, a private agency?

Yet another reason we need Congress to hold oversight hearings on DEA medical marijuana activities. Good to know that House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers is concerned about this issue and has already begun to question the DEA on its actions.