Jerry Sanders isn’t always the right-wing’s favorite. He testified against Prop 8, and is generally a little bit too moderate for extremism that is the bulk of the Right today. Now, to call him a moderate is to pretty much ignore his record in San Diego. Perhaps he’s towards the middle of the California GOP, but really, is that saying all that much?
At any rate, the big news is that Sanders has now announced that he is opposing Prop 23, the dirty energy proposition that would turn back the clock on California’s landmark regulation of greenhouse gas pollution.
“The clean-tech sector is booming in San Diego,” Sanders said in a release from the No on 23 campaign. “These companies have moved to San Diego because they stand to thrive and prosper as the state seeks to meet its greenhouse-gas standards over the next few decades.
“Proposition 23 would throw these businesses into chaos by eliminating those greenhouse-gas standards. It would also eliminate a powerful incentive for other clean-tech companies to relocate or expand here.” (SD U-T)
And this is the reason that you are seeing many folks who usually line up on the other side opposing Prop 23. It represents a tremendous opportunity for California to be a leader in green technology. Rather than being a “job killer” as Carly Fiorina alleges, our regulation of greenhouse gas pollution is a real win-win.
The Sacramento Bee reported yesterday that “BP, the energy giant responsible for the largest offshore oil spill in history, helped develop [California’s] framework for teaching more than 6 million students about the environment.”
That’s right; the same people who brought you the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster are helping to shape the education of millions of students. In fact, the environmental education curriculum will be used in “kindergarten through 12th-grade classes in more than 1,000 school districts statewide.”
The thought of BP – or any big oil company – playing a role in designing education on environmental issues makes me very nervous. In California, we’ve got Texas oil companies spending millions of dollars trying to kill our landmark clean energy and climate law. That’s bad enough; we certainly don’t need a British oil company writing our kids’ education materials.
Dollie Forney, a mother of three from San Jose said, “This is outrageous. Now our schools and officials are so cash-strapped and unimaginative and desperate we are allowing Big Oil to write our children’s curriculum? ”
The fact is, over the years, BP has rightly earned the title of having “the worst safety and environmental record of any oil company operating in America.” Of course, that’s not much of an honor, especially when you consider how BP came by its miserable environmental reputation. This includes being slapped with “the two largest fines in OSHA history — $87.43 million and $21.36 million — for willful negligence that led to the deaths of 15 workers and injured 170 others in a March 2005 refinery explosion in Texas.” BP also “agreed to pay a $50 million fine and plead guilty to a felony violation of the Clean Air Act, and was fined “a total of $21 million for manipulating the California electricity market, Enron-style.”
It’s not a pretty picture. All of which raises the question, why would anyone even think of giving this company a say in designing education materials on the environment, of all topics? As Lisa Graves of the Center for Media and Democracy says, “I’d hate to see how a section in future textbooks mentioning the BP oil spill will look.”
Originally posted on The MarkUp. This is the fourteenth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
After the Gold Rush, but before Hollywood and the Silicon Valley, California’s Central Valley became one of the most prosperous agricultural areas in the world. Recent water shortages have challenged this legacy; however, fruit, vegetable and particularly cotton, remain the driving force in the region’s economy. The Central Valley may be undergoing a demographic shift of late, but it’s not due to agriculture’s decline – it’s because high home prices in the Bay Area are driving middle-income workers to Tracy and Stockton. The 11th Congressional District, which includes much of this area as well as some Bay Area suburbs and areas further south, is historically conservative. And, while the region remains the most Republican part of the Bay Area that is not saying very much. Currently, Democrat Jerry McNerney represents the 11th district in the U.S. House.
Rep. McNerney came into office in 2006 after defeating arch anti-environment Republican Richard Pombo. At the time, Pombo was a seven-term incumbent with a daunting campaign war-chest, and the number one target of the environmental community. As chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, Pombo spearheaded unsuccessful efforts to weaken the Endangered Species Act, drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling. In stark contrast, McNerney was a renewable energy consultant and entrepreneur who made clean energy the signature issue of his campaign. Environmental groups, like Defenders of Wildlife, campaigned fervently on McNerney’s behalf, and his election over Pombo remains one of our community’s signature victories of the past decade.
Not surprisingly given this background, McNerney has been a champion for the environment during his first two terms in Congress. According to the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) he has rarely missed an opportunity to take the environmental vote on key issues, scoring a 93% in the last session of Congress. In endorsing his current reelection bid, LCV President Gene Karpinski said that McNerney “has been an invaluable leader in championing clean energy jobs and protecting our natural treasures… As a wind energy engineer and father of an Air Force veteran, Congressman McNerney knows from experience how important clean energy is to our economy and our national security.”
Unlike Rep. McNerney, who voted in favor of the historic American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) – the first climate bill to pass a chamber of Congress – his opponent this November, David Harmer, thinks, “global warming is more a religion than a science.” And in April, Harmer told a tea party rally, absurdly, that climate legislation would enable the government to regulate every time they exhale. With Harmer misrepresenting both the unassailable science of global warming and reasonable solutions like ACES, you have to wonder if he’d be another Pombo if he ever got to Congress.
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
Meg Whitman has made it abundantly clear that her campaign is tightly focused on a few key area – one of them being jobs and the economy. There is no doubt that AB 32 is a job-killer. Whether she is the next Governor of California or not, our state will be better positioned to come out of this recession is AB 32 is mothballed until the economy is humming – which will likely take a lot longer than the next Governor’s ability to temporarily suspend AB 32’s draconian regulations for just a year.
First, I welcome this. I think campaigns should be about ideas. And in this case, Jerry Brown is strongly opposing Prop 23. Meg Whitman, well, like all other areas, she’s nowhere to be seen. Instead, she airs another million of TV and pretends that she is owed something. Let’s have a real debate, and see Whitman take a strong position one way or the other.
Of course, this being a conservative discussion, you have to toss in some willful ignorance to have a real party. Besides the throwaway use of “Democrat Party”, (I get it, very cute, Jon.) you have a heaping helping of climate denial:
There is certainly a vibrant debate taking place in the scientific community about whether or not changing temperature around the globe are tied to actions of people on the planet, or possibly part of a large, epic cycle of atmospheric change that is naturally caused.
To that, well, the quick response is no, there isn’t a vibrant debate. Ignorance does not make a debate vibrant. Study after study after study show that humans are contributing to climate change, trying to come up with some false dichotomy only distracts us from finding long-term solutions.
Whitman has been skating along on her vagueness for too long. Whichever way she chooses to come down on Prop 23, she should give the voters a sense of who she really is. As of right now, all we have is a few snippets from 30 second spots.
It’s an issue that cannot be covered enough, especially since we’re seeing the environmental impact on our very shores and the external costs around the globe in disasters.
The external costs are those not added to the true cost, the cost we pay at the pump and those who usually pay that cost are the poor, the least of us who live on the outskirts of our society, either in our own Country or Globally in less developed Countries.
But as the Gulf nightmare has shown, the costs will become more apparent at home.
And so the efforts of organizations like the National Resource Defense Council and anyone who is willing to talk about the issue should be applauded.
They currently have an amazing piece up by Ryan Reynolds (MY new hero, because he is also producing a documentary about a very wonderful Orca named Luna, who’s story is as tragic as it is beautiful), The True Cost of a Gallon of Gas.
The conclusion is the most important part, the true cost of gas is impossible to calculate because to try to measure the worth of biodiversity, the health of our children affected by pollution, the loss of habitat, I think it’s beyond our grasp to try to put it into small numbers before a dollar sign. But it’s what we seem to live and die by.
It’s easy to vilify Big Oil after a tragedy like this, but there are still hard working people in that industry who need to put a roof over their heads. I firmly believe we can pass clean energy and climate legislation and by doing so, put millions of Americans to work.
But we have to ask for it. We have to petition the government to move this kind of legislation forward. The Senate failed to do it this summer, but we should call on them to do it this fall.
If the voices are loud enough, lawmakers will start to listen and (if only in the interests of self preservation) begin to move the country in a new direction.
I think our approach to energy is going to change one way or another. Eventually the Earth will make us change. It would be great if we could get in front of that — and better still, be here to enjoy it.
It is easy to point fingers at big oil, what it comes down to is putting more and more Americans back to work and attempting to put big oil down at the same time. It’s a hard sell. They have a lot of money backing them, money to burn.
Not only does OPEC like the idea of cheap oil to keep alternatives outpriced and out of the market. But you’ve got big players like Koch spending money to crank up the anti-global warming rhetoric. Greenpeace traced their dirty money and all the players they fund to keep talking up the free market deniers on our airwaves to muddy the waters and keep people in denial. It works too. I wrote about it here.
Funding Cape Wind Protests Bill Koch has a nearly five-year history of opposing one of largest renewable energy initiatives in America. Cape Wind, a project to develop the country’s first offshore wind farm, has received a significant amount of media attention, not only for its prominence as the first major proposal of it’s kind, but also for the manufactured opposition from wealthy individuals like Bill Koch.
According to the project’s developer Jim Gordon and his company Energy Management Inc., Cape Wind calls for the construction of 130 wind turbines off of Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound.34 While the project is expected to produce 420 megawatts of energy, providing Cape Cod and the surrounding islands with three fourths of the area’s total electricity needs, Koch has been vehemently against Cape Wind. Koch has a home overlooking the Sound in Osterville, Massachusetts, and has been quoted in a variety of publications stating that Cape Wind would ruin the beauty and hinder his sailing in the area. “Who would want to sail in a forest of windmills?” said Koch, in a 2006 Forbes article.35 “I don’t want this in my backyard.”
According to capewind.org, the turbines will be visible 440 feet above the water. Point Gammon is the closest land area to the development, at a distance of 5.2 miles and Nantucket is the furthest away at 13.8 miles. The Web site also adds however that Cape Wind is “farther away from
the nearest home than any other electricity generation facility in Massachusetts.”36
Koch’s opposition to Cape Wind surpasses his verbal protest and manifests in his role as chairman for a front group that he also supports financially. He has been one of the largest donors to The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, one of the most recognized adversaries of Cape Wind. Formed in 2001, the group collects donations in efforts to lobby against the building of the wind turbines, and in 2006 had raised $11 million, 90 percent of which has been donated by Koch and
other wealthy opponents of the project.37 Koch, who serves as the group’s co-chairman, has given at least $1.5 million to support the cause.38 Other donations have come from extremely wealthy individuals like Paul Fireman of Reebok, who gave $250,000 and Michael Egan, son to the founder of EMC Corp., who gave $150,000.39
Evidence shows that the Alliance is particularly strategic in how they solicit such donations. In 2006, the Boston Globe reported that an internal fundraising guide from the Alliance shows that the organization has specific steps for wooing a donor. The 35-page guide teaches fund-raisers how to meet a donor, court them at home and engage them with a follow-up call. According to the Globe, the guide makes statements such as, “Don’t be afraid if there is silence, allow them to think about their response,” and “Highlight fund-raising successes to date, but our success will depend on major donors at the six-figure level.” The guide explains that small donations, such as $5,000, are frowned upon and viewed as “token gifts.”40
Oxbow Lobbyists Against Cape Wind
In addition to being the largest identified funder of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, Bill Koch has also funneled $1 Million dollars to lobbyists to fight Cape Wind through his company, Oxbow Energy.41 By using his company as the conduit for these lobbying payments from 2005 to
2007, Koch helped the Alliance not exceed their limits for lobbying expenditures as a tax-deductable not-for-profit charitable organization. 42
Koch’s use of Oxbow to funnel money to lobbyists against Cape Wind started surreptitiously, with payments from Oxbow to the lobbying firm U.S. Strategies. That firm then paid other lobbyists to work against Cape Wind, including Kessler & Associates.43 This lobbying activity coincided with a
widely criticized move by members of the Alaskan delegation in Congress working with opponents to Cape Wind. The delegation attempted to attach language to a Coast Guard Reauthorization Act in Conference Committee that would have singled out Cape Wind and prohibited it from being permitted.
It was a lobbyist being funded through Koch’s company Oxbow that set up the first meeting between Alaskan Congressman Don Young and the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. Young inserted anti-Cape Wind language into the conference bill shortly thereafter.44 Due to a strong bipartisan outcry, the anti-Cape Wind provision was later significantly modified so that Cape Wind could continue forward in its permitting process.
Koch’s role in lobbying efforts against Cape Wind were revealed again in a 2008 Boston Globe article that described a lobbying disclosure form showing Oxbow along with the Alliance as the funders of yet another lobbying firm, BKSH & Associates, against Cape Wind.45 This was the
first time that Oxbow Energy and the Alliance were listed on the same lobbying disclosure form for anti-Cape Wind lobbying which the Alliance and Oxbow would later claim was a ‘mistake.’
The efforts of Koch and the Alliance were defeated this past April when U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar approved the project, making it America’s first offshore wind facility.
It’s not just money behind the scenes, we know that, it’s lobbyist money, it’s money given to think tanks to put pundits on the TV to try to convince Americans that climate change is not real and, as we learned this week, Fox News, the mouthpiece for the Republican party is not staying on the sidelines either when it comes to the money game, 1 million dollar donations are not “fair and balanced” (Not that I had an delusions otherwise).
This is about buying public opinion and continued complacency so that we will continue down the same path that keeps a very few people and corporations rich while many pay the price for our dirty energy dependent society.
Corporations can buy candidates, the Supreme court said so. But we can vote. We can lobby for better legislation, we can talk to our neighbors and tell them that what we see before us, the world that is changing around us, this is not an illusion, it is reality.
We cannot afford to pay for cheap gas anymore in the lives lost, in the cost to our environment, to the cost to our oceans, air and our future. These costs are far too high and the stakes are so much more than any of us could imagine.
I am extremely disappointed by the Senate’s failure to address the governmental and corporate failures that led to the BP oil disaster. The inability to respond to a great environmental catastrophe, coming on the heels of the failure to deal with climate change, is astonishing. By doing nothing the Senate has failed to create American jobs, increase our security and protect the environment.
The BP blowout has disrupted the lives of millions on our Gulf Coast. The well may finally be plugged, but we are still left to wonder about the long-term effects of millions of gallons of oil and a million-plus gallons of chemical dispersant on our health and the environment. It will be a long time before we fully understand the consequences.
But we already know the costs of inaction on clean energy and climate legislation. Every day since the Senate failed to act:
— America falls another $210 million behind in clean energy investments;
— we miss the opportunity to create nearly two million good-paying clean energy jobs; and
— we import another 491 million gallons of oil, raising the price of oil, which gives Iran — a recognized sponsor of terrorism — another $173 million dollars in oil profits.
And while the Senate fails to act, temperatures keep rising. In fact, since 1985, every single month has seen global average temperatures higher than the average for all of the 20th century. As a result, more than one third of U.S. counties face higher risks of water shortages in the coming years.
You still have an opportunity to invest in our workers at home, to stop sending billions of dollars overseas, to slow the rate of climate change. But this will require your active leadership in making sure the Senate takes action now. There is still time to get the right legislation enacted, a bill that responds to the Gulf spill, limits carbon pollution, ends our oil dependence and creates new, clean-energy jobs throughout the country.
Sure, you might be rocking your Boycott Valero bumper sticker, but have you thought about who this particular oil company is? Or Tesoro, the other big Texas oil company funding AB 32 greenhouse gas pollution regulations? Well, as the Ella Baker Center found out as they did some digging, they are a pair of companies that has consistently and repeatedly trashed the environment. Some examples:
On July 26, Tesoro settled with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to settle 44 air quality violations that included excessive releases of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and ammonia. The company agreed to pay the district $366,375. In 2008, it paid $1.5 million to settle air quality violations in Martinez.
Valero was cited earlier this year. On June 17, Valero released hydrocarbon, hydrogen sulfide gas and coke material into the atmosphere from its coker unit in Benicia. Four refinery employees were reportedly injured, and staff reported numerous air quality violations associated with the incident. (CalWatch)
Of, course there is a lot more, and you can find the details in the report (also available over the flip). Both of these companies are trying to exploit the initiative system to shut down critical long-term planning for our environment for their own short term gain.
But the market will correct for that, right? Well, not so much. This is a classic market failure. Companies are in no way forced to pay for their emissions, so neither their products nor their inputs are properly priced. And they push for less regulation because their management is hung up on short-term share price, rather than the long-term stability of the company. After all, it’s “rational” for the current leadership to do so because they won’t be there when the house of cards all falls down.
Take while the taking’s good, and leave the mess for the next sucker. But, with Prop 16, California voters told the corporate world that while our initiative system can be bent, it isn’t completely broken yet. No matter how much you spend, you can’t win with money alone.
UPDATE: I’ve added a graph of the funding for Prop 23. As you can see, the bulk of the money has come from out of state oil companies trying to exploit our initiative system for their own short-sighted gain. Click the image for a higher resolution version.
I’ve admitted it in the past, and I will continue to be open and honest about who I am. I am comfortable in who I am, and how I have become the person that I am.
I grew up in Texas.
As I grew up, I constantly saw these commercials with different celebrities saying/singing don’t mess with Texas. And while it’s pretty hard to argue with Stevie Ray Vaughn and the general anti-littering message, it isn’t quite so difficult to call them out on their political machinations. Since the past election, Texas Governor Rick Perry has been in the spotlight quite a bit. Not a big surprise, considering he discussed the idea of secession approvingly.
But, I guess it’s cool when Texas messes with California. Because apparently the Texas oil companies think that they can buy the elimination of AB 32’s historic regulation of greenhouse gas pollution. Today, Valero, of boycottvalero.com fame, announced another $3 million for the Yes on Prop 23 campaign.
Valero Energy Corp. dropped another $3 million into the Proposition 23 campaign, according to campaign finance filings reported Friday to the Secretary of State.
The Texas-based oil company has contributed more than $4 million to the initiative, which would suspend California’s landmark greenhouse gas emissions reduction law until the state unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. Tesoro Corp., another oil company based in Texas, has also contributed more than $500,000 to the campaign.(SacBee)
Prop 23 would essentially end California’s regulation of greenhouse gases and put us back to square one. Instead of being a nationwide leader, we would be back waiting for the federal government to act. (And yeah, that 5.5% unemployment is virtually unobtainable, so Prop 23 would end AB 32 for all intents and purposes.)
This is absolutely the wrong way to go for California. Just while we are building up our green economy, we cannot turn our back on one of the few growth industries in our state. If Texas wants to continue on the way of the dinosaur and fossil fuel, that is for Texas to Decide.
But in California, we value our environment, and all the millions that Valero has poured in will not change that.
Just when you thought the U.S. Senate couldn't do any less for clean energy and the environment than it's (not) done so far, we now face the real possibility of what would amount to a “stop-work order” on the 40-year-old, wildly successful (e.g., studies finding benefits outweighing costs at a 40:1 ratio), Clean Air Act.
That's right: believe it or not, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is moving ahead with a sequel to Sen. Lisa Murkowski's nefarious attempt, earlier this summer, to gut the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s power to protect the public health from dangerous pollutants, including harmful greenhouse gases. Just as bad, Rockefeller's proposal would keep America addicted to oil and other old, polluting energy technologies, while delaying or derailing our switch to a clean, prosperous energy economy.
Essentially, what Rockefeller is proposing would tell the EPA – at least for two years, although we know that justice delayed is often justice denied! – that it has to be asleep at the switch, that it must not hold polluters accountable, that it must look the other way whole Big Oil and Big Coal trash the environment. Is that the lesson the Senate learned from the Gulf of Mexico disaster? Really?
Fortunately, not everyone is so clueless as the U.S. Senate appears to be right now. For instance, in yesterday's Politico, two energy investors – one Democrat, one Republican – explained what's at stake in clear, compelling language.
We are not experts in vote counting or horse trading. But we do know how investors and markets will respond if Congress ultimately fails to put a market-based price on carbon. The response from capital will be brutal: Money will flow to places like China, Europe and India — and U.S. jobs will go with it.
The path to creating more U.S. jobs is simple: Pass legislation that eliminates uncertainty and levels the playing field, and investors will fund projects that create good jobs here at home. Rules bring certainty, certainty spurs investment, and investment creates jobs.
[…]
Take it from investors: Removing the uncertainty, and taking a more thoughtful approach to energy policy by putting a market price on carbon, can bring home new investments and jobs — and ensure that America leads the clean energy economy.
Instead, it now looks like the Senate not only won't be moving us forwards, but instead will be trying to move us significantly – and disastrously – backwards. What's truly stunning about this possibility is that, right now, the science of climate change is clearer and more disturbing than ever. Heat waves are getting worse, the ice caps are shrinking faster than ever, and scientists are telling us that the world is setting new temperature records almost every month, every year, and every decade. In addition, the results of our insatiable thirst for fossil fuels were demonstrated starkly and tragically, both in a West Virginia coal mine as well as in the Gulf of Mexico, on TV screens all across America in recent months. As if all this isn't bad enough, we also could run out of water.
The American people know this situation can't go on. In fact, recent polls show large majorities supporting an energy bill that would “[l]imit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy…by charging energy companies for carbon pollution in electricity or fuels like gas.” In other words, this is a case where good policy – limiting greenhouse gas emissions, enhancing our national security, safeguarding public health, jumpstarting a clean energy revolution – and good politics – strong poll results for doing just that – appear to align. Yet, the U.S. Senate appears ready to ignore both good policy and good politics, and actually move to make matters worse by gutting the EPA and letting polluters like BP off the hook.
Don’t let them do it. Call your Senators right now and tell them “hell no” to the “Let Polluters Pollute with Impunity Act.” Also, while you’re at it, call the White House and tell President Obama that, if such a measure reaches his desk, he will veto it – no ifs, ands, or buts.
Take action today for a cleaner, stronger, and more sustainable future. Join NRDC Action Fund on Facebook and Twitter and stay up-to-date on the latest environmental issues and actions you can take to help protect our planet.
The climate bill blame game has begun. When I first started writing this post about the so-called death of the climate bill, I literally pointed the finger at just about everyone, including myself. The anger poured out, and I was frank in my assessment as well as unforgiving in the motives behind this latest setback.
After I was done with my self-loathing tantrum, the kids ran in the door from camp and I was swept up in the lovely reality of my family's banter. It is summer, so the pace in our home is a bit more relaxed in the evening. We aren't quite as quick to rush through dinner, toss the kids in a bath, and then march them off to bed. Ice cream and extra cuddles are relished, and I am reminded each year at this time why I do this job.
Later, after progeny were tucked in, I went back to my draft blog post to spruce it up. I reread my rage, disappointment, and irrational ramblings and was embarrassed. And I asked myself “What good is all this blame going to do?”
At the end of the day, it is my kids – and your kids – who lose when we implode. If you think kids have a lot to say about their parents now on Dr. Phil, can you imagine what our children will say in 50 years should we fail to get our act together?
The country should be ready for this. The facts are on our side. As we witness the worst industry-caused environmental catastrophe in our history, the worst coal mining disaster in 40 years, and sweat through the hottest first 6 months of any year on record, it is clear that there's never been a more urgent time to move forward with a smart clean energy and climate plan.
Unfortunately, the politicians just aren't there. At every juncture during this debate, a minority, led by the Republican leadership and supported by a few impressionable (I might say pathetic) Democrats, has obstructed the opportunity to solve America's energy problems, preferring to leave the worst polluters and the big petro-dictators in control of our energy policy, while tax-payers are forced to pay for their messes.
Oopsy… there goes that blame again. Let's focus on what we can do next.
Hope is not lost. Of course, the closer we get to the midterm elections, the more challenging passing a bill becomes. Still, it's not impossible. In fact, the Senate has passed almost every single bedrock environmental law in the fall of an election year or in the “lame duck” session following an election. Here are just a few examples:
o Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) – 1996 Amendments: 8/6/96
o Food Quality Protection Act: 8/3/96
o Energy Policy Act of 1992: 10/24/92
o Clean Air Act of 1990: 11/15/90
o SDWA – 1986 Amendments: 6/19/86
o CERCLA (Superfund): House 9/23/80, Senate 11/24/80, POTUS 12/11/80
o Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA): 10/21/76
o Toxic Substances & Control Act (TSCA): 10/11/76
o SDWA: 12/16/74
o Clean Water Act: 10/18/72
o Establishment of the EPA: first proposed 7/9/70, established 12/2/70
o National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): 1/1/70
o The Wilderness Act: 9/3/64
As this list demonstrates, the Senate and the environmental movement are no strangers to passing major legislation right before – or just after – an election.
I don't want to overpromise success. This is an uphill battle. But if you and I show up to every town hall, rally, spaghetti dinner, and other rituals of election year and fight for our kids… fight for our country… fight for our America… we can turn the tide. Without that kind of passion, we will all lose. That's an outcome we must try hard to avoid, on behalf of people, communities, large and small businesses – oh, and our kids, sleeping peacefully or playing happily around the country.
In the meantime, we must also protect what we already have, like a plethora of state laws and the federal Clean Air Act. I recommend reading David Doniger's blog on Switchboard today that really outlines how we can make progress with the tools we have right now.
In coming weeks and months, we must continue to push forward for a strong, clean energy and climate bill, just like we have done countless times in the past. I am done with blame. History is on our side. Are you?
Take action today for a cleaner, stronger, and more sustainable future. Join NRDC Action Fund on Facebook and Twitter and stay up-to-date on the latest environmental issues and actions you can take to help protect our planet.
As the full scope of the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico continues to unfold, there's another energy-related drama in California. This one threatens the Golden State's landmark law (AB 32) to limit the greenhouse gas pollution that is already harming California and to promote a host of related clean energy policies that would benefit the state. A proposition that is now certified for the November ballot, Proposition 23 — known as the “Dirty Energy Proposition” — would kill investments and job creation in the new energy economy already spurred by AB 32 since it was enacted in 2006. This is one of the most important environmental campaigns of 2010, with implications far beyond California.
Two of the worst polluters in California, Texas-based oil companies Valero and Tesoro, are also funding this backwards ballot measure (Proposition 23) that would effectively repeal AB 32 and the clean energy policies such as clean fuel standards, pollution controls, and energy efficiency associated with the law's implementation.
The Texas-based oil companies supporting this ballot measure also have an insidious national strategy. They hope that by rolling back climate and energy policies in California, they can block progress in other states and derail federal climate legislation in Congress. Windfall oil profits allow these oil companies to pour millions of dollars into their campaign of disinformation, distraction, and deception. It is also worth noting that Valero and Tesoro were recently named the #12 and #32 polluters in the nation in the “Toxic 100 Air Polluters” report issued by the University of Massachusetts Amherst Political Economy Research Institute (PERI).
The bottom line is that we must stop Prop 23, which threatens to stunt and obliterate job growth in California's emerging clean energy sector (e.g., energy efficiency, solar, advanced building materials, and others). In contrast, California's economy would benefit greatly from a properly implemented AB 32. As the Stop Dirty Energy Proposition website reports:
“According to a new report by California's Employment Development Department, more than 500,000 employees already work part or full-time in so-called 'green' jobs.”
“In recent months, dozens of companies have announced they would be locating manufacturing plants in California, specifically because of [the] state's progressive clean energy laws.” These companies include Tesla, Solyndra, Nanosolar, and Kyocera.
“There are 10,000 megawatts of renewable power in California currently competing for federal stimulus dollars – directly because of AB 32. The total public and private investment from these projects is $30 billion and 15,000 new jobs.”
“Creating energy efficient commercial and residential properties and retrofitting existing buildings will create tens of thousands of jobs in California and billions upon billions of economic activity directly for building trades workers and product manufacturers.”
There's strong agreement among scientists that California's on the right track and that turning back state law is a very bad idea. Earlier this week, 118 economists wrote a letter which explained that “[d]elaying action…before initiating accelerated action to reduce global warming gases will be more costly than initiating action now.” The economists added that policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging the development of clean energy will “improve our energy security, create new business opportunities and more jobs, and provide incentives for innovation.”
Why would anyone want to stop this progress? For an answer to that question, you need to ask the Texas oil companies, although it's easy to figure out what their motivation might be. Hint: it's a word beginning with the letter “m” and rhyming with “funny.”
Fortunately, there's a large and (rapidly) growing coalition fighting against Prop 23. A few highlights include: the League of Women Voters of California, Google, Levi Strauss, AARP, Pacific Gas & Electric, Consumers Union, the California Teachers Association, California Interfaith Power and Light, Governor Schwarzenegger, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and the California Federation of Labor. This past Sunday, the California Democratic Party unanimously voted to oppose Prop 23, declaring:
The California Democratic Party opposes Prop 23 because it will kill jobs, increase air pollution, and undermine our transition to a clean energy economy,” said Tim Allison, chairman of the CDP's Environmental Caucus. “The Texas oil companies' dirty energy proposition is bad for our economy, our air and our energy future.”
Also worth noting is that former Reagan Administration Secretary of State George P. Shultz has signed on as “honorary co-chair of Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs, a coalition opposing a proposed ballot measure to suspend the implementation of AB32.” Shultz says, “As a former Secretary of State, I see our dependence on foreign oil as one of the greatest threats to national security, and the Dirty Energy Proposition would undermine efforts to break that dependence.”
For all those reasons, and many more, I strongly encourage everyone to fight Proposition 23 and to defend California's landmark clean energy and climate law. Thank you.
Take action today for a cleaner, stronger, and more sustainable future. Join NRDC Action Fund on Facebook and Twitter and stay up-to-date on the latest environmental issues and actions you can take to help protect our planet.
