Clean Energy: California’s Climate Fight Heats Up
September 30, 2010, 1:00am

As temperatures reached a record-breaking 113 degrees in downtown Los Angeles Tuesday — it was so hot, a National Weather Service thermometer stopped working — the fight for California’s climate future is also heating up. Come election day, California voters are in danger of undoing “one of the most progressive pieces of environmental legislation ever enacted,” thanks to a ballot measure pushed by handful of big out-of-state oil companies to kill California’s landmark global warming law. Passed by bipartisan majorities and with strong support from businesses and environmentalists alike, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as AB 32, will guide the state’s emissions back down to 1990 levels by 2020, resulting in hundreds of fewer premature deaths each year. Since it passed, the law has catalyzed billions of dollars in private sector investment in clean energy in the state, helping to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Meanwhile, as the Los Angeles Times noted, California has already “begun to feel the effects [of global warming], with rising sea levels, the disruption of habitats for plants and animals, and diminishing mountain snowpacks that are critical to the state’s water supply.” However, Proposition 23 — placed on the ballot and promoted almost exclusively by three big out-of-state oil companies — would essentially kill this hugely successful piece of legislation. In an attempt to confuse voters, the referendum says it will merely “suspend” the law until California’s unemployment rate drops to the unrealistically low level of 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters. The state’s current unemployment rate is 12.2 percent, and has dropped below 5.5 percent only three times since 1970, so the initiative’s passage would effectively kill the law. Moreover, suspending the law would actually hamper economic growth, according to economists, further jeopardizing the law’s eventual implementation. Recent polling offers mixed forecasts of Prop. 23’s prospects, but the data suggests that voters are unclear about what the measure will actually do, thanks to its deceptive wording. Once respondents were read a short explanation of the measure, the numbers shifted with a majority disproving of Prop. 23, suggesting that voters need to be better educated.

YES MEANS NO: The climate law is largely popular in California, with 67 percent of the residents supporting it. But a handful of out-of-state oil companies, interested in profits above all else, have exploited California’s elections laws, which allow almost any organization with sufficient resources to place a referendum on the ballot to hijack the political process. Two huge Texas oil companies, Valero and Tesoro, have led the charge against the landmark climate law, along with Koch Industries, the giant oil conglomerate owned by right-wing mega-funders Charles and David Koch. Koch recently donated $1 million dollars to the effort and has been supporting front groups involved in the campaign. As of earlier this month, the Yes on 23 campaign has raised $8 million — 97 percent of which comes from oil, and 89 percent of which comes from out of state. Valero, Tesoro, and Koch alone are responsible for 80 percent of total contributions to the Yes on 23 campaign. A recent study by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Oakland found that “Valero and Tesoro have repeatedly violated pollution laws in California by releasing chemicals into the air.” The study found that both corporations have numerous outstanding violations with state regulators, and are attempting to settle them, instead of paying them in full. As the New York Times editorialized, “The Kochs and their allies are disastrously wrong about the science,” and are promoting Prop. 23 merely “because they worry about damage to the bottom line.” Meanwhile, the Yes on 23 campaign has turned to tobacco lobbyists for help, the same ones who engineered Philip Morris’ fight against efforts to tax cigarettes and stop childhood as well as indoor smoking. The groups supporting Prop. 23 has disguised it as a jobs bill, dubbing it the “California Jobs Initiative” — despite the fact that repealing the law would actually destroy existing green jobs in California, whose numbers are growing 10 times faster than the statewide average. The studies used to push the Yes on 23 campaign’s phony economic claims have been widely discredited, with California’s non-partisan Legislative Analysis Office calling one “essentially useless.” Unfortunately, the state’s GOP candidates for governor and Senate have both endorsed this flawed argument. Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman dubbed parts of the climate law “job killing,” but has tried to hedge. While saying she will vote “no” on Prop. 23, she wants to delay implementation of AB 32 until the supposedly pernicious parts can be fixed. For her part, GOP Senate candidate Carly Fiorina said the law is “undoubtedly a job killer” — this, despite having once been a supporter of cap-and-trade legislation. Fiorina even attended a high-dollar fundraiser last week that included Koch Industries PAC.

FIGHTING BACK: Ironically, the company Whitman founded, eBay, has been one of the most outspoken supporters of California’s climate law, with the company’s vice president saying, “The goals of AB32 — job creation, innovation, and business opportunity — are at the core of the way we run our business at eBay.” Indeed, a wide coalition of businesses, environmentalists, and social justice advocates have begun to fight back. Over the past two weeks, the No on 23 campaign has collected more than $1.8 million in contributions, while the Yes campaign has taken in only $6,500. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed the climate legislation into law and regards it as a “key part of his legacy,” recently tore into the Yes on 23 campaign in a speech, audio of which was obtained by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann. “Oil companies like Valero and Tesoro and Frontier and Koch Industries are blatantly trying to manipulate the will of the people and the public good,” Schwarzenegger said. “Does anyone really believe that these companies, out of the goodness of their black oil hearts, are spending millions and millions of dollars to protect jobs?” In July, over 100 economists signed a letter in support of the state’s climate law, saying it will “stimulate innovation and efficiency,” “help the state become a technological leader in the global marketplace,” “create new business opportunities and more jobs,” and “provide immediate benefits to the health and welfare of residents by reducing local pollutants.” On Monday, leaders unveiled Communities United Against the Dirty Energy Prop, a coalition of more than 80 Latino, African American, and Asian groups have come together to fight Prop. 23. An August study from the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights found, “the people who bear the biggest health burdens from these facilities are disproportionately people of color: three of the four refineries these companies operate in California are sited in low-income areas with large populations of people of color.” Polling data also indicates that minorities may end up being the “deciding factor” at the polls.

BEYOND CALIFORNIA: The outcome of the Prop. 23 vote holds major significance not just for Californians, but for the entire country, and the world. California is the eighth largest economy in the world and contributes 1.5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, meaning the dismantling of its global warming law will have serious ripple effects across the globe. And as the Center for American Progress’ Araceli Ruano and Sean Pool wrote, California’s climate law is a critical “model for federal action,” and “gives us concrete evidence that a price for carbon pollution can effectively create jobs by spurring new markets for energy efficiency and clean energy technologies.” Other states have followed California’s lead as well. Since the climate law passed in 2006, nine states have enacted comprehensive climate change legislation, while eight more have established greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. Three major regional climate initiatives are underway as well. Meanwhile, as Pool notes, “California has been a leader in clean energy and energy efficiency for decades. Over the past 35 years California’s model energy efficiency policies have saved consumers over $56 billion, creating 1.5 million full-time jobs.” In 2007 alone, the state was responsible for over 1,400 clean-tech patents — roughly a fifth of the nation’s total. All this innovation and critical experience will be greatly jeopardized, if not destroyed, if Prop. 23 passes. After a major setback nationally with the Senate failing to pass comprehensive climate legislation, California offers the best hope today to combat global warming in the U.S. But with the momentum on their side, oil companies are hoping to kill the clean energy movement for good with Prop. 23.

Think Fast

McDonald’s Corp. is threatening to drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new health care law requirement. Sending “one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers’ health plans,” McDonald’s claims the requirement to spend 80 to 85 percent of premiums on benefits would be “economically prohibitive” to continue offering coverage.

The House yesterday approved a bill “to give up to $7.4 billion to workers sickened during the cleanup of the World Trade Center site after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.” New York lawmakers said they would push the Senate to pass a similar bill once Congress returns for its lame-duck session.

CIA Director Leon Panetta told Pakistan’s intelligence community yesterday that the U.S. government is working to counter a terror plot to attack several public targets in European capitals. According to Panetta, the CIA learned of the attack — which was set to occur in November — after “capturing one of the prospective attackers en route from Pakistan’s FATA region.”

Pakistan blocked a vital supply route for U.S. and NATO troops yesterday, following a cross-border helicopter strike that killed three Pakistani soldiers. The blockade appears to be a major escalation in tensions between the U.S. and Pakistan.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) “will not lift her hold on Office of Management and Budget director nominee Jack Lew,” continuing to demand that the Obama administration first lift its moratorium on offshore drilling. The senator met with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Tuesday, but there was no resolution of her issues with the moratorium.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and her Republican challenger, Carly Fiorina, traded charges that the other was too extreme for California during a debate last night. Boxer accused Fiorina of shipping jobs overseas as CEO of Hewlett-Packard, and attacked her opposition to health care reform.

Yesterday, Senate Democrats “agreed to a Republican demand” to block President Obama from making recess appointments while Congress is out for midterm elections. In scheduling pro-forma sessions, Democrats prevent Republicans from forcing any of the 115 executive- and judicial-branch pending nominations from having to be resubmitted and reconfirmed in the Senate.

And finally: Obama said he’s “amused” by Jon Stewart’s rally. “I was amused — Jon Stewart, the host of The Daily Show, apparently he’s going to host a rally called something like ‘Americans in Favor of a Return to Sanity’ or something like that,” the president said. “And his point was, you know, 70 percent of the people…are just like you.”

ThinkProgress is hiring! Details here.

Blog Watch

The truth about racial profiling.

How is the “surge” doing?

Is technology creating a “generation of nincompoops”?

Facebook and freedom.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) goes to friendly territory to call for extending Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Retired generals want Cuba travel ban lifted.

Courts let stem cell funding continue for now.

The case for longer school days.

Daily Grill

“I wanna be able to go into Washington and be the voice for the everyday person — be the one who’s not an incumbent, not a multimillionaire, but an average person who earns her living and can’t afford those tax increases.”
— GOP U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell, 9/29/10


“President Barack Obama and most Democrats want to renew the tax cuts for individuals with annual incomes below $200,000 or families with incomes below $250,000.”
— Reuters, 9/29/10