There’s a clear difference between how Dan Lungren and I view our responsibilities as leaders, Americans, and members of our community.
And this contrast is clearly illustrated in how we view the tragedy that is unfolding around the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
As a father, I have no greater responsibility than making sure I leave our world better for the next generation. As a doctor, it’s my job to listen to my patients, understand their challenges, and work with them to make the necessary decisions. As a person of faith, I know it is our responsibility to protect and preserve the planet with the utmost of care.
If I’m elected to Congress, I know it is my obligation to represent your interests, and the interests of your children and grandchildren above the interests of corporate America. It’s time we remove the corruption and greed that is grinding our government to a halt.
Together we can begin to chart a new path for America and a clearer future for our children.
Last Thursday, the Senate voted 53 to 47 to defeat the Murkowski resolution that would have undermined the EPA's ability to reduce global warming pollution. The vote provides a useful guide to how senators might act on a climate vote.
Of course, it is not a clear-cut comparison because some people voted against the flawed resolution to make a point about process or simply to support the science. It is significant to note that we have 10 more votes in favor of reducing carbon emissions than we did the last time climate change was discussed on the Senate floor two years ago.
But here is what I find most interesting about last week's vote: the number of Senators who have all publicly exclaimed that global warming is a pressing problem but who voted to block the EPA from dealing with it. Are they sitting on an “election year fence” or are the deep pockets of Big Oil & Coal companies propping up their campaign contribution fences? The question must be asked – Why do these senators benefit from burning caveman fuels?
Senator Rockefeller, for instance, said: “I am not here to deny or bicker fruitlessly about the science… In fact, I would suggest that I think the science is correct. Greenhouse gas emissions are not healthy for the Earth or her people, and we must take significant action to reduce them. We must develop and deploy clean energy, period.”
And yet the man voted to hamstring the EPA. Indeed, Senator Rockefeller intends to push his own bill that would put the EPA's effort to confront global warming on hold–giving West Virginia's coal industry a free pass for two more years.
Senator Chambliss from Georgia, meanwhile, said, “I know the climate is changing.” And Senator Hutchison from Texas declared: “As a solution to climate change, we need to work together to promote the use of clean and renewable sources of energy….It is important that we work together. We are the elected representatives of the people.”
And yet both of them voted against one of our main tools for combating global warming pollution: the EPA.
I'm sorry, but if you really believe this is a crisis, why wouldn't you want to fight it with every weapon available? Why wouldn't you deploy the muscle of both Congress AND the federal government?
While I was listening to last week's debate, I couldn't help but be reminded of teaching my three-year-old how to tie her shoes. I showed her how to do it with two hands, of course. Why on earth would I suggest she do it with one?
Yet that is what these Senators seem to be proposing. Senator Collins from Maine said: “I believe global climate change and the development of alternatives to fossil fuels are significant and urgent priorities for our country.”
Why would she want us to fight global warming with one hand tied behind our back?
On the one hand, these statements are good news – despite the yelping of Inhofe and Hatch, the Senate is not a bastion of climate deniers. There's even a consensus that something must be done. The bad news is they're still not doing it. What is it that these Senators actually would support that isn't just some vague theory?
Down in the Lone Star State, they like to say that everything is bigger in Texas. I am not sure they were talking about the lies Texas companies like to try and sell the good people of California, but they should have been. In fact, with April 1st just around the corner, it seems that Texas Oil Companies bankrolling the initiative to suspend AB 32 are counting on Californians to be willing to be fooled again (remember what Enron did to Golden State anyone?)
Anti-AB 32 groups first relied on the now completely debunked “Varshney Study” to “prove” that passing this legislation would be the ultimate job killer and lead to skyrocketing consumer costs. But now that the Legislative Analyst's Office has torn the research to shreds, calling it “unreliable” and “essentially useless”, the anti-AB32 force is focusing on some new junk science to stand in as a replacement.
The California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA) is using an oil industry-funded study conducted by the Pacific Research Institute to support its argument of the negative impacts of clean energy legislation. And it's no surprise that CMTA is the voice promoting this study, since the group has already announced its support for “AB 32 Suspension” in a recent press release as well as shelling out big bucks as one of the main sources funding the “AB 32 Implementation Group” (which contrary to the title, is code for the force working to suspend AB 32).
But like we saw with the Varshney Study, just because you paid a scientist to create it doesn't make it true. So before you buy into the “facts”, make sure you are aware of the variables that are manipulating the data behind the scenes:
The oil industry: Valero is a leading member of CMTA, contributing over $500,000 to help suspend AB32. Also, Valero lobbyist Michael Carpenter happens to be one of the board members of the Pacific Research Institute, which has funded the study.
The author of the study Thomas Tanton: consultant to the oil and gas industry and Senior Research Fellow with the Pacific Research institute where a Valero lobbyist sits on his board. He is also a former VP at the Institute for Energy Research (IER), an organization funded by oil and gas interests, which has received over $200,000 of funding from ExxonMobil.
CMTA's VP of Government Relations, Dorothy Rothrock: was an industry energy consultant for years before joining CMTA. From the moment AB 32 was signed into law Rothrock criticized it – even though unemployment was 4.8% at the time – which makes her support for enacting the initiative when unemployment levels reach that low again very doubtful.
Now that this report is in the same trashcan as the Varshney Study, we're sure that another one is on the way. Wouldn't it be better if the oil companies just stood up and said, look, we don't want progress on clean energy because we will lose in billions in dollars in profits? Wouldn't that be more honest? We doubt that will happen but in the meantime, don't be a fool this April.
AB 32 is a proven job creator and will continue to drive innovation and success for California. It's bad news for big oil companies, and we don't need to create a fake study to know that.
So it’s been over a week since Texas oil refiners (and two of California’s worst polluters) Valero and Tesoro ponied up close to $2 million to launch a petition drive to get an initiative on the November ballot to kill AB 32, California’s nation-leading legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels and encourage job creation in the booming green/clean energy and tech industries. Naturally, Valero, Tesoro and assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Chino), one of the initiative’s primary sponsors, are doing their best to keep Texas Big Oil’s involvement in the petition a secret, refusing to confirm or deny that Valero/Tesoro are actually the sole funders of the signature drive and stand to profit from insuring that Californians continue to breath some of the dirtiest, most unhealthy air in the nation.
Unfortunately for them, the secret is out. Supporters of AB 32, the environment and clean energy started a website, NoOnValero.com, to let Californians know that the effort to kill AB 32 is about Big Oil profits, not saving or creating jobs. They also staged a rally in front of a Sacramento Valero station to tell Valero to mind its own business. Below is news coverage of the event, and you can also visit the No On Valero Youtube channel to hear what the protesters think of Valero’s involvement in trying to kill AB 32.
Not to be outdone, the Teabaggers, America’s favorite racists and climate change/evolution deniers, decided to stage their own pro-Valero rally the next week. That’s right, a rally to celebrate the fact that an out-of-state Big Oil company — a member of one of America’s most hated industries after banks and health insurers — is attempting to further corrupt our political system and compromise the health of Californians. Because apparently Teabaggers, who claim to value what they call “freedom”, think it’s better if unelected Texas CEOs of heavy-polluting corporations write California’s anti-pollution laws. Also, someone may want to tell the Teabaggers that Valero’s involvement in the petition is supposed to be, you know, a secret. And I’ll be curious to hear what Valero thinks of getting the support of a group known mostly for racism, unhinged anger, willful ignorance and irrational, apocalyptic conspiracy theories.
Then again, Valero may need all the support it can get. In a shocking turn, one of the leaders pushing for the anti-AB 32 ballot initiative, conservative Dan Costa of People’s Advocate, is now opposing the ballot initiative due to Valero and Tesoro’s involvement and the seediness of keeping it a secret, possibly in violation of state campaign laws. From the Sacramento Bee:
Ted Costa, of People’s Advocate, said he continues to believe in the thrust of the initiative but that the signature-gathering campaign has been “stolen” by big-money interests that have not identified themselves publicly.
“You ruin the whole organization when you go through this kind of muck,” said Costa.
“I wanted to do a grassroots operation and involve a lot of people,” Costa said. “But they believe they can run this thing out of the country club and to hell with the little people of California. If they have half a million dollars, how come they haven’t reported it?” he asked.
Of course, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to Costa that Logue would be hopping in bed with Valero and Big Oil, even if it seems unseemly or illegal. After all, Logue knows who owns him. From California Watch:
Last year alone, the oil and energy industries donated $14,200 to Logue’s campaign coffers, including $2,000 from Valero. Other Logue donors in 2009 include Chevron, Occidental, and the California Independent Petroleum PAC.
So Big Oil buys Logue through campaign contributions to get him elected, then Logue sponsors a ballot initiative to kill legislation that Big Oil is opposed to, then two Big Oil companies provide the funding to gather signatures for the initiative. Could the dots be any easier to connect? The Circle of Oil continues…
And in another surprise, not only are the authors of the thoroughlydebunked Varshney/Tootelian report claiming that implementing AB 32 would lead to massive economic pain refusing to defend their work from the withering criticism it has received, but apparently they don’t think AB 32 is so bad. From the State Hornet:
“We conducted an independent and unbiased study, and certainly support the spirit of AB 32,” [Dennis Tootelian] said in an e-mail. “Our study estimated the costs, and we have no other comment.”
You’d think he’d have something a bit stronger to say after Tootelian’s co-author on the report, Sanjay Varshnay, received criticism like this:
“For a guy [Varshney] who purports to be a professor, this is an embarrassment to himself and an embarrassment to [Sacramento State],” said Chris Thornberg, economist and founding principal of Beacon Economics.
Thornberg said the report committed fatal flaws in basic statistical analysis. The authors used regression analysis, a statistical technique used to test one variable while controlliing for many others. The report looked at state output, but did not control for the number of workers and amount of capital in California.
“The results are so screwy and crazy,” Thornberg said. “It’s so bad that if a freshman student handed this to me, I wouldn’t even give him an ‘F,’ I would call it incomplete and hand it back to them.”
With only a month to get almost 434,000 signatures, the anti-AB 32 petition drive is off to a pretty rocky start. But one thing that’s for sure is that you should never, ever count the republicans out. They never give up and will fight to the end using the dirtiest tactics, the biggest lies and the most outrageous scaremongering imaginable. Plus, the anti-AB 32 movement was handed a gift this week in the form of a new report by California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office claiming that AB 32 will result in short-term job losses, even though the Union of Concerned Scientists pointed out that the report admits that predicting job losses or gains from AB 32 is extremely difficult, provides no independent research to back its claim of overall job losses, and fails to mention the numerousstudies that have found that AB 32 would be a net job creator with little or no impact on small businesses.
With California’s reputation for setting precedents that the rest of the country often follows, you can bet that powerful players are gearing up for a fight that will only grow in intensity as the days tick down until the petition signatures are due on April 16.
Stealthily and without fanfare, a petition has been launched to get a measure on the November ballot suspending AB 32, California’s landmark legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions and spur green job growth. So who is funding the signature drive? None other than San Antonio-based oil refiners Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp. — the #7 and #8 biggest polluters in California. From the LA Times:
Two Texas-based refinery giants have pledged as much as $2 million to fund signature gathering for a ballot initiative to suspend California’s landmark global warming law [AB 32], according to Sacramento sources.
The companies, Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp., own refineries in California that would be forced under the law to slash emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
But neither Valero or Tesoro is owning up to it.
A Tesoro spokesman did not respond to inquiries. But the company’s website invites visitors to lobby Congress to ensure “fair” climate legislation and fight any effort by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Bill Day, a Valero spokesman, declined to confirm or deny the company’s involvement, saying that “any contributions would come out in normal disclosures” under California’s campaign laws.
And neither is Dan Logue (R-Marysville), one of the initiative’s main sponsors. From NYTimes:
Dan Logue, the Republican assemblyman behind the suspension, also refused to discuss where funds had originated.
So forget about the astroturf groups claiming the movement to kill AB 32 is a bunch of small local businesses worried about their survival in a tough economy. The mask is off the anti-AB 32 movement, and behind it is exactly what we thought we would find: big oil, big pollution, big corporations and the corporatist Republicans who love them. That’s why Logue, Valero and Tesoro refuse to admit where the money for the ballot initiative is coming from, even if it means possibly violating California Fair Political Practices Committee regulations. The fact that Texas Big Oil is funding an initiative to keep California’s air dirty and kill its burgeoning green economy is a PR nightmare.
So let’s have no more illusions about what the move to kill AB 32 is all about.
Killing AB 32 is not about job creation or lowering unemployment. Valero and Tesoro don’t care about creating jobs or lowering unemployment in a state over 1,000 miles away from them since that won’t increase their profits. If they did care about job creation, they would be supporting AB 32 since California’s clean/green economy is creating jobs at a rate 2.5 times faster than the rest of the economy while attracting billions in venture capital investment, including an announcement this week that Kyocera will be opening a plant in San Diego to manufacture solar modules. Besides, the Varshney/Tootelian report that AB 32 opponents often cite to prove that AB 32 will kill jobs and hurt the economy has been exposed by numerouseconomists, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the California Budget Project as being fatally, almost cartoonishly flawed, with one pair of economists calling it “one of the worst examples of schlock science we’ve ever seen.” Even Sanjay Varshney, one of the report’s co-authors, admitted that the report is “not exhaustive” and now seems to be backing away from its conclusions.
In fact, Valero and Tesoro want California’s air to become even more dirty and dangerous because they profit from pollution. Instead of being ethical and responsible and cleaning up their own mess, they can make even more by “socializing” and externalizing the cost of pollution — making Californians pay for it in the form of taxpayer-funded environmental cleanups, increased medical bills and lost work days stemming from pollution-related illness, and premature death. Tesoro claims it wants “fair” climate legislation when the most “fair” thing they could do is to clean up their own pollution instead of making others deal with it. And while they adamantly oppose any legislation that puts a price on carbon, the truth is that Valero and Tesoro know that carbon already has a price — the extra profits they make by not cleaning up the carbon pollution they generate.
Call Valero at (210) 345-2000 and/or email Tesoro and tell them what you think of what they’re doing. They’ll try to redirect you to a PR firm, but be insistent. And if anything, tell them that you and all of your friends will never, ever buy their gas again.
We’ve already had out-of-state interests stick their nose in to tell Californians who we can marry. Let’s make sure out-of-state Big Oil doesn’t dictate what kind of air we’re forced breath.
MOVEON MEMBERS VISIT REP. JOHN CAMPBELL’S (R-CA) OFFICE TO CALL FOR END TO GRAND OIL PARTY (GOP) STUNT ON HOUSE FLOOR
GROUP WILL GATHER AT NOON TO DELIVER PETITIONS DEMANDING A CHEAP AND CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE
MoveOn members in Irvine will gather at noon on Thursday to call for an end to the Republican’s political theater on the House floor.
They will deliver petitions calling for real solutions–not gimmicks–for Americans suffering from this energy crisis. The event follows on a similar one at the Capitol on Tuesday in Washington DC and will be held at the same time as dozens of events in Republican districts around the country (to date, 250,000 petitions nationally).
Since Friday, the Republicans in Congress have been playing to the television cameras with theatrical stunts because Speaker Pelosi blocked their offshore drilling plan. The Republican plan will not lower gas prices but it will line the pockets of Big Oil executives, the same people donating millions of dollars to Republicans.
“The political theatrics in the House right now are brought to you by the Party that’s been sold to Big Oil,” said Kate Nikolenko, a local MoveOn member. “Americans need solutions, not gimmicks. Rep. John Campbell (R-CA) could have voted to move forward last week, but instead he is grandstanding for a bill that will not lower gas prices but will line the pockets of Big Oil CEOs.”
The petition, signed by people in this district, reads, “America must commit to producing 100% of our electricity from cheap, clean renewable energy sources, like solar and wind, within 10 years.”
WHO: MoveOn Members from Irvine
WHAT: Call for an End to Republican Big Oil Stunt on Capitol Hill
WHERE: Rep. John Campbell’s Office, 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 330, Newport Beach, CA
WHEN: Thursday, August 7th, at noon
MoveOn.org Political Action is a political action committee powered by 3.2 million progressive Americans. We believe in the power of small donors and grassroots action to elect progressive leaders to office and to advance a progressive agenda. We do not accept any donations over $5,000, and the average donation to MoveOn.org Political Action is under $100.
One minute, Dianne Feinstein impresses me (the US. Attorneys), the next, she pisses the hell out of me. The House passed legislation to fix the $10billion contract error, but now DiFi and others in the Senate aren’t so sure if they are interested in that:
In January, as part of their “100 hours agenda,” House Democrats passed a measure designed to fix a $10 billion mistake that gave huge royalty breaks to oil companies that drill on federal land.
Now, two key Democrats with political ties to the oil and gas industry are contemplating a gentler approach to correcting what the Interior Department’s Inspector General has called “a jaw-dropping example of bureaucratic bungling.”
Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Jeff Bingaman, who both represent energy-producing states, say worries over a possible lawsuit from the oil industry have led them to consider other alternatives, including an industry-supported plan that would offer three-year lease extensions to companies that agree to begin paying royalties. (USA Today 4/6/07)
It turns out Prop 87 has an interesting back story. Namely, it has a story about one man’s quest to see the oil companies help fund alternative energy. And the man? A journeyman screenwriter.
The gifts had been opened, the roast duck consumed and Dan Kammen was watching a football game when the telephone interrupted his Christmas Day ritual.
Anthony Rubenstein, a former screenwriter unknown to Kammen and most Californians, was on the line describing his dream — a statewide initiative to pay for alternative energy research and development. … The Christmas Day phone call is a classic “cold calling” technique for telephone solicitors — and one of many Rubenstein admits using as he turned his dream into Proposition 87, the oil tax initiative on the November ballot.
At 42, Rubenstein has never before been involved in a political campaign. He’s never been active in environmental causes and claimed little energy expertise before speaking to Kammen.
Yet this self-described “low-rent screenwriter” is the instigator of one of the biggest environmental initiatives in years and one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns this year.(SacBee 8/27/06)
More on the flip…
Prop 87 creates an oil severance tax. The state would take a cut from each barrel pulled from the ground, varying froom 1.5% to 6% depending on the price of oil.
He said the breakthrough came when the group realized California was the only major oil-producing state without a severance tax on oil extraction. California imposes 6.2-cent-per-barrel regulatory fee that produces about $14 million in revenues.
Proposition 87 proposes a new tax on producers of 1.5 percent to 6 percent of the value of the oil they extract in California. The size of the tax would increase as the per-barrel price of oil rises.
“That made this more than just a good idea,” Rubenstein said. “It made it viable.”
Opponents claimed California, with its corporate income and property taxes, already has the fifth-highest taxes on oil producers of any of the top 10 oil-producing states.
Personally, I love this last line. “fifth highes taxes of the top 10 states. Uh…so, pretty much it’s smack dab in the middle. One could also say it has the sixth lowest taxes. What kind of ridiculousness is that?
In the end, I have some qualms with Prop 87, namely that it creates this set aside. I would prefer that the money go into the general fund. That being said, I would encourage most of that money to go to energy effeciency as well.
Also, couldn’t they have thrown zero emissions vehicles in Prop 87 too? I’d love to see the electric cars back in Califoria’s fleet.
