This fall, California voters will vote on Proposition 23, officially termed a “suspension” of California's global warming law (AB32) “until unemployment reaches 5.5%” and named by its supporters a “jobs initiative.”
The battle should play out exactly as similar battles over federal climate policies: conservatives claim it'll destroy jobs, raise taxes, and increase family energy costs; environmentalists valiantly-yet-unsuccessfully try to set the record straight, only to be ignored by middle class voters worried about pocketbook issues.
But a funny thing is happening.
The narrative is shaping up to be quite different. The shadowy interests behind Prop 23 are being exposed to the light. And Prop 23 is being opposed by clean technology investors who see a stark choice: build the future or burn the planet.
Consider it evidence of hope.
In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act, commonly known as AB32, which established the first-in-the-world comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases. Conservatives have been whining about it ever since it passed; hence, Proposition 23. Officially, it's been placed on the ballot by Assemblymember Dan Logue, who calls it a “jobs initiative.” But calling it a jobs initiative doesn't make it true, and calling it Logue's proposition only conceals the out of state dirty energy interests behind Proposition 23.
- Behind Proposition 23: Out-of-State Oil and Coal
Who's really paying for Prop 23? Short answer: Valero Energy of Texas, Tesoro of Texas, and Koch Industries of oil/gas/coal/Americans for Prosperity fame.
Valero has given over $4 million of the nearly $6.2 million received by the Yes on 23 campaign, and Tesoro is in for $525,000. A shadowy Missouri conservative group with ties to coal whose spokesman criticizes “liberal politicians” in California with “crazy radical ideas” has donated $500,000, even though last December it only had $109 in its bank account. A ThinkProgress blog post links Koch Industries to the “yes on Prop 23” forces.
A Sunlight Foundation investigation of donations 1998-2008 found that Big Oil's money at the state level goes mostly to influence public, not politicians; money is spent on elections, not contributions. Prop 23 fits that mold.
- Opposing Proposition 23: The Future
Of course, environmentalists are appalled by any effort to roll back AB32. However, serious money is coming from other sources. Venture capitalist John Doerr has given $500,000 to the “No” campaign; Farallon founder Tom Steyer has pledged $5 million. Silicon Valley venture capitalist Vinod Khosla states: “Proposition 23 will kill markets and the single largest source of job growth in California in the last two years. Not only that, it'll kill investment in the long term for creating the next 10 Googles.” Small wonder that the cleantech industry opposes Prop 23.
In 2009, 40 percent of cleantech venture capital went to California, where some 12,000 companies are working on ways that could help businesses and consumers reduce energy consumption. More than 500,000 people work in the industry, including 93,000 in manufacturing and 68,000 in construction. Clean energy jobs are growing in California at 10 times the statewide average. For job-related reasons, the San Jose Mercury News editorial page urges a no vote.
Big Oil may be meeting its match in Google.
Perhaps sensing a loser, Meg Whitman is waffling on Prop 23.
The fall campaign season hasn't yet started, and optimism may be premature. However, a Proposition 23 defeat would be the first sign of optimism on the climate front I've seen since the climate bill died. The good clean energy jobs are already here in California. Investors know it. Our economy will not only survive regulation of greenhouse gases, it'll flourish. Let's hope the climate peacocks of the United States Senate listen. In the meantime, courtesy of Climate Progress, here's five actions to take:
1.Visit the “No on 23″ website, learn the facts & sign up: Stop Dirty Energy
2.Educate yourself on how California’s climate & energy laws have created companies & jobs: CABrightSpot
3.Tell your friends by email, on Facebook, at work, & everywhere else.
4.Participate in the debate. Write letters to the editor and post comments on blogs & websites.
5.Contribute here. The other side’s leader, right-wing California Assemblyman Dan Logue, has publicly said he expects the oil companies to spend $50 million.
When last we heard from Suspend AB32 in mid-February, it was dying from lack of the mother’s milk of politics, a shortage of funds, along with a renaming (thanks to once-and-future governor Jerry Brown) from “California Jobs Initiative” to the far more accurate “Suspends air pollution control laws requiring major polluters to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.” However, as any fan of George A. Romero knows, some creatures are hard to kill.