Proposition 23 is the referendum measure in California which would eliminate suspend the state law, the Global Warming Solutions Act (a/k/a AB 32), that calls for lowering California’s greenhouse gas emissions until California’s unemployment rate hits 5.5% (well that is effectively the elimination of the law). That law was passed with Republican Arnold Schwartzenegger’s active support in 2006.
Not too long ago the polls indicated that Californians rejected Proposition 23 by roughly a 60 to 40 margin. That was back at the end of July. Now however, since the infusion of big corporate cash from Big Oil, such as the Koch Brothers (which I wrote about HERE), a new poll has been released are showing that the likely voters who are willing to vote for Prop 23 is now roughly equal to those opposed to its passage.
(Reuters) – California voters are essentially split on a ballot measure that would suspend a global warming law until the state’s jobless rate falls to 5.5 percent for a year, according to a poll released on Saturday.
The Los Angeles Times/USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences poll found that 40 percent of likely California voters supported the measure, known as Proposition 23, while 38 percent were opposed.
The supporters of Prop 23 claim that the Global Warming Solutions Act is a job killer despite the fact that many business and economic experts claim otherwise. What the Act may do, however is threaten the potential profits of industries that produce or consume dirty energy (i.e., fossil fuels). Not surprisingly some of the largest polluters in California are backers of Prop 23.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The Texas-based oil companies that are the primary backers of a November ballot effort to suspend California’s global warming law are among the state’s biggest polluters, according to a report issued Tuesday by two groups advocating for inner-city residents.
Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp. have contributed more than $4.5 million to Proposition 23, which seeks to suspend a 2006 law intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Their contributions represent nearly 75 percent of the funding for the initiative. […]
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency listed Valero’s oil refinery in Benicia as the fourth largest emitter of chemicals in the state in 2009. Tesoro’s refinery in Martinez ranked eighth.
Meanwhile companies in the “Clean Energy” sector are doing their best to fight these two Texas polluters and the Koch Brothers lies about the so-called negative effect on jobs caused by AB 32:
For the Yes on 23 side, Assemblyman Dan Logue from Linda, California took the stage, alternating between arguing that ending AB 32’s environmental protections would improve California’s air and would create jobs for the state. Tom Steyer, who runs a $20-billion hedge fund out of San Francisco, argued against the Assemblyman, asserting that the AB 32 has created thousands of jobs in the state, as well as improved our air quality.
The Assemblyman’s arguments were flawed from the outset, based entirely on a disproven claim that spurring renewable energy in the state causes businesses to relocate elsewhere. If you like numbers, take a look at this recent study that found that simply conserving power (not taking into account new energy sources and their infrastructure) creates jobs. But even on a conceptual level, it is easy to understand that building solar cells in the desert, wind farms in our valleys and inventing all the new technology that has to come with a new energy economy is going to create jobs. The question is just whether they will be here, or in China. […]
Tom Steyer, co-chair of the No on 23 campaign pointed out again and again that preparing for a new energy economy was just plain smart, and that undoing the work that the state did would set us back. He pointed to previous industries where California has led the way, and argued that California should lead the way, not just for pride, but also for the jobs and investment a leadership position provides. And this guy knows about investing – he runs the 10th largest investment fund in the world.
For anyone who cares about the world’s climate and our economy, defeating proposition 23 is a must. The rest of the country often follows California’s lead on environmental issues. The essential elimination of this critical carbon emissions law would have long tern consequences for our country and for the world climate.
The Global Warming Solutions Act was an important first step by an American state to address the issue of climate change. To lose it now because greedy, lying polluters have the money to buy enough ads to misinform enough voters would be devastating. It would effectively kill the nascent Green Energy industry in California, and in 30 years those of us who could afford it would once again be buying our energy from foreign countries, in this case China or the Europeans.
Because the oil and gas and other fossil fuels cheaply and easily available to us are rapidly diminishing. We can tear down more mountaintops for coal, use dirty oil from tar sands and risk more environmental disasters like the Deep Water Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico. And even then, we will continue to pay more for a form of energy that is killing our planet, piece by piece, species by species.
Alternatively we can invest in cleaner, carbon free sources of energy, creating new jobs, greater wealth and a more livable, sustainable world. I know what I would choose, and frankly that choice should not be left to whims of filthy (literally) rich billionaires like the Kochs and mega-polluters like the two Texas oil companies who are attempting to pass themselves off companies which are concerned for the welfare of average citizens when all they really care about is their bottom lines.
If you can, please contribute to NO on 23 – Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition today.
Thank you.
