This year, climate activists have been on the defensive. The climate bill died in the Senate. Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Baked Alaska) effort to roll back the Clean Air Act came close to passing the Senate. Politicians both Blue Dog and red complained that jobs were more important than climate. In this environment, California’s Proposition 23 — an initiative to suspend the state’s global warming law until unemployment reaches 5.5% for a year — seemed like a slam-dunk.<\/p>\n
But a funny thing happened. Californians are more bothered by the ideas that Proposition 23’s funding is 97% from oil companies and 89% out of state<\/a>, and that it’ll destroy our clean air, than they are by the myth — and it is a myth — of Proposition 23 saving jobs to be killed by the global warming law.<\/p>\n In 2006, California passed the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), making the state a leader in fighting global warming by reducing greenhouse gases and serving as a catalyst to the state’s growing green jobs market. This election, out of state dirty energy producers are funding Proposition 23 to undo all of that and turn back the clock on our state’s clean energy future. <\/p>\n Proposition 23 is opposed by the obvious groups: environmentalists, California’s wind and solar industries, and the American Lung Association. It’s also strongly opposed by Silicon Valley: Google executives, San Francisco venture capitalists, and chambers of commerce in Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San Francisco. The San Jose Mercury News<\/a> urged a “no” vote early. The Oakland Tribune<\/a> and Contra Costa Times<\/a> have recently added their voices, and the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat<\/a> recommends No: “a misguided attempt, largely backed by big oil companies,” to undermine clean air priorities. <\/p>\n California elections tend to be the blue coast vs the red inland. Not this time. Check out the Manteca Bulletin<\/a> explaining the oil companies’ reasoning: Valero and Tesoro want to shut down their California refineries, the only ones in the country to meet California’s strict emissions standards, and bring in dirty fuel refined out of state by workers paid less. <\/p>\n The Woodland Daily Democrat<\/a> urges a no vote: “The initiative would devastate efforts to create a vibrant clean-energy sector and have a disastrous impact on the state’s economy.” For those who’ve never visited, Woodland is a farm town in Yolo County that UC Davis students perenially mock as “stuck in the 1950s.” Ventura County Star<\/a> urges voters to reject Proposition 23 to clear the air. Although Ventura County is a coastal county, it’s conservative. And the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce<\/a> opposes Proposition 23. Reagan-era Republican George Shultz isn’t afraid to say that passing Proposition 23 will harm national security<\/a>.<\/p>\n Fiscally conservative San Diego’s most conservative suburbs are in the East County. The East County Magazine<\/a> named five local mayors voicing their opposition, then did the math: <\/p>\n As of August 18, Yes on 23 lists not a single state or federal elected official endorsing their position. No on 23 lists 35 state and federal elected officials. Yes on 23 lists 58 businesses; No on 23 lists over 292 businesses and business organizations, including 182 renewable energy businesses as well as corporations including Google, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., and Blue Shield of California. Yes on 23 lists 158 total businesses and organizations of all types, including the California Automotive Association and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; No on 23 lists 474 groups in its camp including the American Lung Association and Sierra Club. Yes on 23 lists zero individual business leaders; No on 23 lists 321.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The most curious incident with Proposition 23 may be the California-based big businesses who aren’t barking against it. Both California-based Chevron and the California Chamber of Commerce are staying neutral<\/a>. <\/p>\n So who, besides out-of-state oil companies, supports Prop 23? The Chico Enterprise-Record<\/a>. After refusing to take a stand during a nationally televised debate, climate zombie Carly Fiorina<\/a>. Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity. And, most recently, four Republican attorneys general from four faraway states<\/a> — Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas — are preparing to sue California if Proposition 23 fails. But, so far, not a lot of Californians. We’re not going to be manipulated by out-of-state dirty energy interests into voting against our own interests.<\/p>\n Full disclosure<\/em>: I’m honored to have written, as a volunteer, the “no on Proposition 23” piece at the terrific new website of the California Democratic Party<\/a>. Opinions expressed here are my own…but I hope you’ll share them.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This year, climate activists have been on the defensive. The climate bill died in the Senate. Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Baked Alaska) effort to roll back the Clean Air Act came close to passing the Senate. Politicians both Blue Dog and red complained that jobs were more important than climate. In this environment, California’s Proposition 23 — an initiative to suspend the state’s global warming law until unemployment reaches 5.5% for a year — seemed like a slam-dunk.<\/p>\n