By Jakada Imani

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

We’ve heard it before – “the green economy is here” and “green jobs are on the way!” At the Ella Baker Center, we put time, energy, and money into building training programs and promoting the idea of the “new,” green economy. Just a few years later, the economy crashed and green jobs became fewer and farther between than anticipated.

Now, more than ever, jobs of any kind are hard to find. But a weak economy doesn’t make the bad air any less harmful, or the energy bills we pay any more affordable. In a sustainable, healthy economy, people shouldn’t have to settle for grey jobs. Fortunately, Jerry Brown has a plan to fight unemployment and put more Californians to work fixing up houses and apartments to reduce energy consumption- the renewal and reform of the Public Goods Charge.

The Governor recently proposed a plan that puts the small surcharge most Californians already see on our monthly electricity bills to good, green use. His plan would direct the Public Goods Charge to fund jobs, projects and research reducing energy consumption, pollution, and our dependence on oil and coal. Set to expire at the end of 2011, the Public Goods Charge fund has been re-worked to invest directly in jobs for our communities and energy savings in our homes. In fact, Governor Brown’s plan calls for every dime to be spent maximizing job creation, both immediately and in years to come.

Of this large fund, the lion’s share- $250 million a year- is dedicated to energy retrofits of houses and apartments, with a requirement that at least 25% of the money be spent in low-income communities. This money would immediately go to work providing energy efficiency in our neighborhoods, while employing people from our neighborhoods. Many of us literally cannot afford to miss out on this tremendous investment.

California is known for innovation and leadership on economic and environmental issues, and this plan is no exception. The second-largest category of spending, $150 million a year, is to be dedicated to research and development of new technologies and businesses. This includes incentives for home and business owners to install solar power on their roofs. When our community buildings and neighbors’ homes become power plants, dollars are kept in the neighborhood while pollution is kept out of the air. It’s a true win-win, with the added bonus of creating jobs installing and maintaining these new, green energy sources.

The strength of the Governor’s plan is clearly not just “clean energy” but “economic energy,” a true example of what’s possible when policies connect people most in need of jobs with the work that most needs to get done. Imagine 100 breadwinners employed retrofitting homes, now able to buy their kids school supplies and groceries. At the same time, their hours of work are helping their neighbors live a healthier, more energy-efficient life. Like an electric charge, the money transfers and flows from one source to the next, powering everything in its path.

Too often we are told that we must choose between jobs and the environment. This is a false choice. An economy that promotes the health of the planet as well as their workers is better for everyone. Growing a strong green economy is the best way out of California’s unemployment crisis. It is essential for people of color and low-income communities to be a part of that recovery. And an essential first step is to renew the Public Goods Charge.

Join me in calling on our State leadership to act quickly and renew the Public Goods Charge – a great example of a solution to address California’s problems of poverty and pollution at the same time.

Union of Concerned Scientists Warns CA Voters about Misleading Slate Mailer and ‘Trojan Horse’ Attack Against State’s Clean Energy Law; Urges Voters to Vote NO on 26

With most voters’ attention diverted by the oil industry’s efforts to derail the state’s landmark clean energy and climate law with Proposition 23, another, less scrutinized oil-industry-funded ballot measure–Proposition 26–also poses a serious threat to the environment and clean energy.

Proposition 26 has received nearly $16 million from Chevron and other big oil companies, as well as alcohol and tobacco interests, to get themselves off the hook from paying for environmental and health damage they cause and shift that burden to taxpayers.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is alerting California voters to beware of misleading ‘slate mailers’ arriving in their mailboxes just before the November 2 election. UCS strongly urges a ‘NO’ vote on Prop. 23 and Prop. 26.

“While Prop 23 is a frontal assault on our clean energy law, Prop 26 is more like a Trojan horse,” said Dan Kalb, UCS California policy manager. “As deceptive as the Prop 23 campaign has been, the campaign to pass Prop 26 is even more insidious. Not only do the oil and tobacco companies behind Prop 26 hide the fact that it would starve state and local public health, clean air, and clean energy programs, but now they are funding misleading slate mailers that misinform voters about what the pro-environment position really is on Prop 26.  The pro-environment position on Prop 26 is a definite NO.”

Voters have already begun receiving a for-profit mailer with the headline “Californians Vote Green” recommending votes on Props 25 (no) and 26 (yes) that are the opposite of what the state’s leading public health and environmental organizations recommend.  UCS and several other leading environmental and consumer groups strongly support Prop. 25 and oppose Prop. 26.

“This pay-to-play ‘green’ mailer sinks to new lows when it comes to false advertising,” said Kalb.

                                                                                                                                                                            (cont.)

Proposition 26, which is vague and poorly written, threatens California’s efforts to bolster green jobs by cleaning up the state’s energy supply and cutting global warming pollution.  According to UCS, if passed, Proposition 26 could:

~ Prevent the California Air Resources Board from collecting a fee from polluters to fund CARB and other agencies implementing policies to reach the state’s 2020 global warming emission-reduction target. Those policies include standards for renewable energy and low-carbon fuel.

~ Prevent CARB from levying fees on global warming pollution as part of an economy-wide cap on emissions.

~ Eliminate funding streams for public transportation, crippling implementation of SB 375, which is designed to help Californians drive less, pollute less, and spend less money on gas.

Proposition 26 threatens California’s clean energy and climate laws by oddly redefining taxes, Kalb explained.  Under current law, the state and municipal governments have the authority to impose narrowly-defined fees on industries whose activities harm public health or the environment and then use that revenue to correct and prevent those harms, as long as the amount of the fee bears a reasonable relationship to the harm.

Fees require a simple majority to pass in the Legislature, while taxes require a two-thirds super-majority vote. Proposition 26 would redefine fees as taxes, establishing a nearly impossible hurdle that could dry up funding for CARB and local governments to implement vital energy and environmental clean-up programs.

“If Californians want to support a clean environment and vibrant economy in California, they should vote ‘NO’ on Props 23 and 26,” said Erin Rogers, manager of the Western States Climate and Energy Program at UCS. “If passed, these measures won’t just put the brakes on California’s clean energy laws, they will send a message to businesses, entrepreneurs and investors in the state’s booming clean tech sector that California is no longer open for business. That’s a rotten deal, especially considering that clean tech is one of the only bright spots our state’s economy.”

By Jakada Imani

Executive Director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

The California Ballot Measure process has become a roulette game for big corporations to gamble with the health of our citizens. Perfect examples of how this plays out are Proposition 26 and Proposition 23, deceptive initiatives bankrolled by major polluters, both would result in more pollution in our state, hurting all of us, but especially endangering low-income communities that suffer disproportionate exposure to toxins. High rates of pollution are to blame for the high rates of asthma, lung disease and cancer in Asian/Pacific Islander, Latino and African American communities.

It’s the duty of all Californians to say “No!” to big oil companies and other mega-corporations that seek to distort the truth, and abuse the ballot initiative system with their paid signature gatherers and advertising campaigns as slick and dirty as the oil coating beaches of Louisiana and Florida. It’s especially important to for voters from low-income communities to stand up for ourselves, for the lives we save may be our own children’s.

A long list of Californians- from politicians to CEOs to actors have come out against Prop 23, brought to you by Texas oil companies Tesoro and Valero. The measure, properly derided as the Dirty Energy Proposition, would repeal California’s landmark climate change law.

The quieter, but equally poisonous friend of the Dirty Energy Prop, is Prop 26 being driven forward by Chevron with help from Big Tobacco and Big Alcohol. Knowing that a team’s biggest cheerleaders are oil, tobacco, and alcohol should give anyone pause in wondering whose best interests are at the heart of the matter. It’s easy to see that profit, rather than people or our planet, would win should these propositions pass.

Proposition 26 is an-anti democratic measure that would protect polluters and purveyors of tobacco and alcohol from paying fees used to undo the harm caused by their products. These companies don’t want to pay to clean up their own messes–they expect you and me, the California taxpayer to eat the costs while they pocket the profit.  The independent nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office has warned us that Prop 26 would blow another ONE BILLION DOLLAR hole in the state budget.

Prop 26 would require a costly election in advance of any local government action to impose an appropriate fee. Two-thirds of local voters would have to agree to a fee on a company to pay, for example, air pollution mitigation near a chemical plant.  The State Legislature would also be prohibited from imposing an appropriate fee, on say whiskey to help pay for alcohol checkpoints, unless 2/3rd of lawmakers in each house agree. Considering the influence of corporate lobbyists, Prop 26 would make a new fee on polluters, tobacco or booze, about as likely as my 5-foot tall grandmother joining the U.S. Olympic basketball team. The same 2/3rds threshold has already crippled the state budget process, leaving California’s communities, schools and workforce to suffer.

If big oil and big tobacco doesn’t pay–who does?  We do, the regular taxpayers.  The budget suffers another billions dollar hole in health, education and welfare services, just to protect the profits of the richest corporations in the world.

Proposition 26 is opposed by health and justice organizations including the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and NAACP. We are standing with unions representing teachers, cops, firefighters and nurses, who rightfully worry about adding billion dollars to the state deficit, and the crippling effect on local government services, including health, education, drug treatment, police and fire.

Low-income communities of color, including immigrant communities, are hurt first and worst by pollution, global warming, booze, tobacco and gun selling. Voting No on Prop 23 ensures that California continues its leadership in clean air, climate action and green job creation while a No on 26 protects our right to make companies pay for poisoning our people or our planet.

Please join me in saying “No” on Propositions 26 and 23. Our votes must be the antidote to these poisonous pals.

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.

A great cry went up from defenders of the status quo — eerily similar to what is happening now with AB 32 — predicting economic doom if the legislation was enacted. “Electric cars with broad consumer appeal are an idea whose time has come and gone, much like eight-track tapes, Betamax, and New Coke,” said Jo Cooper, president of a major auto industry lobbying group. “It’s not that we can’t [build electric cars]. It’s that we don’t think it’s the right thing to do. In financial terms, it’s insane,” said Donn Walker, a regional spokesman for General Motors, adding, “The internal combustion engine is here to stay. It’s what customers want.” Automakers warned that plants would shut down, jobs would be lost and businesses would flee the state. Many claimed that it would be pointless for a single state (albeit the world’s 8th largest economy) to take such an ambitious step on its own — all claims currently being made about AB 32.

While automakers and lobbyists filed lawsuits to derail the mandate, they also quietly prepared to comply with it should their efforts fail. And in the case of General Motors, they succeeded in creating a great electric car called the EV1, which was leased to a few hundred lucky Californians (including celebrities like Tom Hanks and Mel Gibson) who quickly fell in love with it. Because of California’s leadership, it seemed like the automotive future had finally arrived and America could begin the long farewell to smog, dependence on foreign oil and one of the major contributors to global warming.

Then George W. Bush was elected, with an administration full of former oil executives, as well as Andrew Card, the former CEO of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association and GM’s VP of government relations, as chief of staff. The ZEV mandate was killed and GM took back and destroyed every EV1, despite the leasees’ offer to purchase them. This sad tale of potential lost is told in the excellent, must-see documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? See my ReThink Review of WKTEC? below and my post about it here.

California was denied the opportunity to lead the nation into a new generation of auto fuel efficiency. And look what happened.

The auto industry went in the opposite direction, creating gas-guzzling SUVs that actually decreased America’s overall fuel efficiency. Our dependence on foreign oil increased, enriching countries like Saudi Arabia (home of Osama bin Laden and nearly all of the 9/11 hijackers), as well as Iran and Venezuela, handing them hundreds of billions as we fruitlessly rattled our sabers at them. Stratospheric spikes in oil prices coupled with the Bush recession left many SUV drivers unable to even fill their tanks, causing demand for gas guzzlers to seemingly evaporate overnight. With hundreds of thousands of SUVs left on their lots and few fuel-efficient or hybrid cars on their rosters, GM and other American carmakers were decimated, declaring bankruptcy, closing dozens of plants, laying off tens of thousands of workers and shuttering or selling off several of their brands. In the meantime, Toyota, which continued their investments in fuel efficiency with hybrid cars like the Prius, became the world’s number one carmaker for the first time in 77 years. Nissan’s electric car, the Leaf, will be onsale in December 2010. This week, GM announced it would stop making Hummers, the worst gas guzzler and an “automotive pariah”, forever.

If California had been allowed to lead with the ZEV mandate, America could have been selling electric cars in the late 1990s instead of fumbling to get their half-baked hybrids and electric concept cars into showrooms as they are now. GM’s electric vehicles and the pioneering technology they were based on would be sold around the world, saving and creating thousands of jobs in the US while reducing pollution from tailpipe emissions.

AB 32 has the same potential, if not more, as the ZEV mandate. And despite high unemployment and economic uncertainty that would seem to breed timidity, Californians are still prepared to lead, and are, in fact, proud of their reputation for doing so. In a recent poll by Tulchin Research, 79% of Californians said they are proud of the state’s leadership in innovation and technology, with a staggering 96% seeing it as an essential part of the state’s economy and 66% feeling strongly that policymakers should boost the tech sector and encourage innovation to strengthen the state’s economy.

California is ready to lead. It’s in our DNA. Don’t listen to the scaremongers defending the status quo, who have been so disastrously wrong in the past. Just let us do it.

(with research by Sarah Phillips)

As you all know, I and other members on the MomsRising.org team have been fervently working to pass a bill in California that would help eliminate the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in plastic baby and toddler products like bottles and sippy cups. I thought I would let you know how the vote went on Friday.

It had already passed the Senate and was favored by the Assembly 35-32. Unfortunately, it did not garner the 41 votes necessary to clear the Assembly. Here is how individual Assemblymembers voted.

Here is a statement by Sen. Fran Pavley, who sponsored and fought her heart out for this important bill:

“California was poised to join Canada, Minnesota, Connecticut and several other cities and counties in the United States that, with significant bi-partisan support, have enacted bans on BPA in baby bottles and other feeding products for children. ‘The science on BPA clearly shows cause for alarm,’ said Senator Pavley. ‘Every child from every community in our state deserves access to safe, affordable products. I don’t understand how some lawmakers are willing to ignore science and risk the health of California children.’

“Bisphenol A (BPA) is an artificial hormone that is widely used in shatter-proof plastic baby bottles, sippy cups and the lining of formula cans. It leaches out of containers and into food and drink consumed by babies and young children.

“More than 220 peer-reviewed studies have linked BPA to a host of health problems, including breast and prostrate cancer, infertility, obesity, and neurological and behavioral changes, including autism and hyperactivity.

“Senator Pavley’s SB 797 was co-authored by Senator Carol Liu, D – Pasadena, and was sponsored by Breast Cancer Fund, Environmental Working Group and Physicians for Social Responsibility. The bill received widespread support from health care professionals, business owners and a long and diverse list of organizations including; Black Women for Wellness, Latinas for Reproductive Justice, The Help Group for Autism Spectrum Disorders, California Teachers Association, California Nurses Association, Asian Health Services, and California Women Infants and Children (WIC), SEIU, California Labor Federation, and Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice to name a few. The opponents include BPA manufacturers Dow and SABIC Innovative Plastics, as well as infant formula makers Abbott, Mead Johnson, and Nestle.”

I won’t lie. I am disappointed in the legislators who voted against the bill and abstained from voting. But I am also extra determined to fight for the bill when it comes up for reconsideration next year, and to convince these legislators that California families with science on our side are more powerful than corporate lobbyists. Will you join me?

Thank you, by the way, to those of you who called your Assemblymembers in support of SB 797!

(A post from Mayor Newsom. As a reminder, elected officials are encouraged to post on Calitics; we’ll do our best to promote them to the front page promptly. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Every day more San Francisco residents and businesses are signing up for two San Francisco programs that will cut monthly utility bills and help the City meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals. One is SF Energy Watch, which provides technical assistance and financial incentives that pays over half the cost of energy efficiency upgrades to commercial and multifamily properties. The other is GoSolarSF, which, when combined with federal tax credits and state incentives, can reduce the cost of installing a residential solar power system by more than 50 percent.

Edited by Brian for space. See the flip for the rest of the post.

In the past 2 years, 1,500 businesses and multifamily properties have saved over $5.7 million in energy bills through SF Energy Watch. The program has also delivered 6 megawatts (MW) of energy efficiency savings, which in turn reduces the amount of energy generation we need from polluting power plants.  

San Francisco currently has nearly 8 MW of in-City solar power, including the massive installation at Moscone Center. But the real San Francisco solar gold rush came when we rolled out GoSolarSF in July 2008. In the first seven months, 640 residents and enterprises had taken advantage of the program’s considerable incentives, applying to install nearly 2 MW of clean, renewable energy — 25 percent of the City’s overall solar portfolio.

All of this activity has been a big boost for companies that provide energy efficiency and solar services in the Bay Area. Because of the way San Francisco has structured these programs; local companies that hire locally benefit the most. SF Energy Watch has helped to sustain and/or expand companies–both service providers and suppliers–and currently supports 150 new and ongoing jobs in this emerging green field.

GoSolarSF has specific bonus incentives for employers who hire new staff through the City’s workforce development program. We have placed dozens of new employees in the local solar industry, and of the 640 projects under GoSolarSF, 83 percent are employing workforce development trainees.

On Tuesday of this week I introduced a resolution that will expand the SF Energy Watch program by nearly $4 million. The money for SF Energy Watch comes from California’s Public Goods Charge, a fund for renewable energy and energy efficiency that you pay into with a percentage of every utility bill.

These additional funds will allow the companies that provide energy efficiency services to add an additional 30 new employees on top of the 150 already employed.

SF Energy Watch and GoSolarSF help build the local economy and develop a skilled local workforce for the exploding green tech industry. But most importantly, these jobs are sustainable. They are not based on a single project, so when completed, the jobs do not disappear. Instead, these programs are open-ended, and in the case of GoSolarSF, supported by city legislation that helps feed the process. And I can see a time coming shortly when residential and commercial energy efficiency will be required by local or even statewide mandates.

On a final related note, last September I announced the Mayor’s Solar Founders’ Circle. This initiative served to inject an important new element in our solar efforts: providing free energy efficiency audits together with solar assessments for any business or non-profit in the City that wants it. This “efficiency first” approach is the smartest path to cost savings when planning to go solar.  Energy efficiency improvements to a property will decrease the size of the solar array needed to cut utility bills.

Listen to Mayor Newsom’s Green 960 radio show online or subscribe to his weekly policy discussions on iTunes.  Join Mayor Newsom on Facebook. You can also follow him on Twitter.

A groundbreaking new poll released today by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights finds that California voters strongly support public investments to create green jobs and prepare people to work in fields that improve the environment.  The results lend timely backing to legislation just introduced by Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg that would invest $5 billion in funding for education and training to prepare students and workers for green careers.

(Poll findings can be found here: Ella Baker Center Green Jobs Poll (http://www.ellabakercenter.org//?p=gcjc_green_jobs_poll).

Oakland-based Ella Baker Center commissioned a poll of 602 likely voters in California to test public opinion about “green jobs.” Of those polled, 80% said that it was either extremely or moderately important “to invest in creating green-collar jobs.”  Steinberg’s SB 675 — The Clean Technology and Renewable Energy Job Training, Career Technical Education and Dropout Prevention Act — would provide grants to build new schools and training facilities, upgrade existing ones, or purchase equipment to provide students and workers with the skills to succeed in green careers.

“This initiative will prepare Californians for our state’s clean energy future, including disadvantaged Californians who may not otherwise have pathways into good, green careers,” said Ian Kim, director of the Ella Baker Center’s Green-Collar Jobs Campaign.

Among the poll’s findings:

•    Voters overwhelmingly support investing in green-collar jobs.  80% of voters said that it was extremely or moderately important to invest in green jobs immediately.  Nearly three in four said they would support fast-tracked investments in solar, wind, and other clean energy projects, and tax breaks for small businesses that create green jobs.

•    Voters broadly support green jobs training and green vocational programs as a tool to provide new opportunities for current and future workers.  Nearly four in five voters said they would support providing green-collar job training for veterans and workers who have recently lost their jobs.  Nearly three in four said they would support green vocational education programs in middle schools, high schools, and community colleges that prepare students for green-collar jobs.

•    Voters are willing to pay for investment in green-collar jobs. Investing in green-collar jobs is so important to voters that they are willing to pass tax increases in order to fund it.  An overwhelming 72% support a small increase on the income tax of millionaires; more than two-thirds support taxing oil company profits; and a strong majority of voters support taxing sources of pollution that cause global warming.

Officials from David Binder Research who conducted the survey believe the numbers signify a cultural shift in the values of Californian voters.  “Survey results show that the current challenges facing the economy and the environment create a perfect storm of support for immediate investment in green-collar jobs,” said analyst Seiji Carpenter.

A new coalition, the Green Jobs Working Group, was recently convened to support bills like Steinberg’s SB 675.  This cross-sector alliance of labor, social justice, and environmental organizations is comprised of the following members: California Apollo Alliance, California Labor Federation, California State Building and Construction Trades Council, Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club California.

“Senator Steinberg should be commended for calling for bold investments in green infrastructure and career technical education when California needs them the most,” said Phil Angelides, Chairman of the Apollo Alliance, which has been at the forefront of national, state, and local advocacy efforts to build a clean energy economy.

The focus in SB 675 on partnerships between educational institutions, apprenticeship programs, and businesses is particularly attractive to organized labor, which could see opportunities for new jobs in construction, energy efficiency retrofits, and renewable energy.  “In the building trades, we have long understood that protecting the environment, and building a strong economy that provides good jobs, go hand in hand,” said President Bob Balgenorth, State Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL-CIO. “Building trades unions and their workers look forward to working with Senate President Pro Tem Steinberg to move this groundbreaking legislation forward.”

The Ella Baker Center is an anchor organization of the Oakland Apollo Alliance, a coalition that helped create the Oakland Green Jobs Corps project. Part social enterprise, part think-tank, and part advocacy arm, the Ella Baker Center’s Green-Collar Jobs Campaign works for a green economy in California that is strong enough to lift people out of poverty.

For more information, visit http://www.ellabakercenter.org/

For poll results please click here, California Green Jobs Poll (http://www.ellabakercenter.org//?p=gcjc_green_jobs_poll)