The backers of the Yes on Proposition 23 campaign in California have plenty of reasons to be embarrassed:

· Their key talking points are based on lies.

· An overwhelming majority of their funding comes from oil and coal companies.

· Some of their key organizers are actually proud to be funded by out-of-state oil companies.

· Their advertisements are designed to mislead Californians.

Even more embarrassing is the fact that their entire campaign is based on a falsehood. While the Yes on 23 campaign claims that the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 is harmful to the economy, they’ve got it completely backward: clean energy solutions that help solve the climate crisis are actually beneficial to California’s economy. To help them out, the Climate Protection Action Fund has developed some new websites the Yes on Prop 23 campaign may want to consider directing their supporters to:

·  http://yes-on-23.com

·  http://yes-on-23.org

·  http://voteforprop23.com

·  http://voteforprop23.org

·  http://yes-on-prop23.com

·  http://yes-on-prop23.org

The new Yes on Prop. 23 sites read, “This is really embarrassing. We’ve just realized that Prop. 23 is a bad idea. It turns out you can solve the climate crisis and create jobs at the same time.”

A screenshot of the content on the sites is below, but you really should visit one of the Yes on Prop. 23 sites  to see for yourself:

Whichever side of the debate the Yes on 23 campaign ends up on, the truth remains: Proposition 23 will hurt California’s economy and environment. Vote “no” on Proposition 23.

A friend and I were driving to Fresno yesterday morning when I received a very welcome message on my blackberry: Meg Whitman has come out against Proposition 23.

Everyone who opposes Proposition 23 had to cheer – and be cheered by – that news.  Now both Whitman and Brown have officially voiced their opposition to this environmentally harmful proposition.

Obviously, it was a tough political decision for Whitman, whatever her convictions may be.  She’s been under pressure to support Prop 23 from a divisive sect of climate change skeptics, and at the same time she must want to maintain an image consistent with the progressive values of the California majority.

But regardless of any complications, I’m thrilled that Whitman has seen past multi-million dollar propaganda and is supporting what’s right for California’s environment and green economy.

That being said, I don’t agree with her position on AB32, the underlying emission’s law that Prop. 23 would roll back. In her official statement today, she reiterated her desire for a one-year moratorium on AB32 and called the law a “job killer.”

I believe this would be a step in the wrong direction. For decades, California’s been a leader in the fight for a cleaner environment. And right now we’re on the cusp of a green energy revolution that can create more jobs for Californians. (That’s on top of the estimated 500,000 green technology jobs already employing citizens of the state.) So to call AB32 a “job killer” is not just wrong-headed, it’s also dangerous.

Business people often criticize environmental regulation and claim it will cost jobs.  They say it’s “impossible” to comply with. Or they “can’t afford” not to pollute. I would think that Meg Whitman – who touts herself as a technology entrepreneur and visionary – would be able to see past this old, false choice.

That’s why I decided to dedicate myself to convincing people to vote “no” on Proposition 23 this November.  I got mad that we as Californians were being attacked by this same defeatist, pessimistic rhetoric: because the clean energy economy is not only about creating a better living environment, it’s about creating a better economic environment. The sooner we get past the outdated “jobs vs. the environment” debate the better off we are going to be on both fronts. We have 40 days till the election. Make sure to tell your friends – vote No on Prop 23.

– Tom Steyer