Oil-Company Backed AB 32 Suspension on November Ballot
The November ballot will be a battleground over a key part of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s legacy – AB 32, the landmark law requiring a steep rollback in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
Qualifying for the ballot June 22 is the “California Jobs Initiative,” backed chiefly by oil companies, which would suspend the law until California’s unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. The state unemployment rate in May was 12.4 percent.
If voters approve the suspension that would also scuttle state efforts to obtain 30 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and create even cleaner burning fuels.
Mandatory emission reporting and the payment of fees by major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries would also halt until the suspension is lifted.
Supporters argue AB 32 will increase costs on businesses and consumers for everything from energy to food and transportation and increase unemployment.
No statement regarding the initiative qualifying for the ballot was immediately available on their website.
Opponents, led by Schwarzenegger, say the initiative will kill the state’s growing clean tech economy, increase air pollution, and drive up energy costs for businesses and homeowners.
They were also quicker to comment:
“This initiative sponsored by greedy Texas oil companies would cripple California’s fastest growing economic sector, reverse our renewable energy policy and decimate our environmental progress for the benefit of these oil companies’ profit margins,” the GOP governor said in a statement
“I will not allow this to happen on my watch. We will continue moving this state forward with our comprehensive energy policy that creates jobs, reduces our reliance on foreign oil and ensures the California we love will be the California we hand over to the next generation.”
The state’s high unemployment and the governor’s low approval ratings are factors the initiative backers will likely exploit.
Opponents, who have created a coalition of more than 300 groups, will focus on the large financial contribution of a handful of oil companies, most out-of-state, and the environmental benefits of continued AB 32 implementation.
To wit:
“In November, Californians will have a clear choice: side with the out-of-state oil interests who are trying to kill our clean air laws and clean energy economy, or stand up for California jobs, clean air, and environment,” said Bill Magavern, Sierra Club California’s director in a statement.
-30-
Filed under: Politics
- Capitol Cliches (16)
- Conversational Currency (3)
- Great Moments in Capitol History (4)
- News (1,288)
- Budget and Economy (383)
- California History (139)
- Demographics (11)
- Fundraising (74)
- Governor (122)
- Legislature/Legislation (270)
- Politics (173)
- State Agencies (38)
- Opinionation (36)
- Overheard (246)
- Today's Latin Lesson (45)
- Restaurant Raconteur (21)
- Spotlight (110)
- Trip to Tokyo (8)
- Venting (184)
- Warren Buffett (43)
- Welcome (1)
- Words That Aren't Heard in Committee Enough (11)
© 2007-2024 californiascapitol.com | Website design by BKB Design Group | Header desgin by Joan Guelden
Unfortunately our humble correspondent is complicit in the green religion dogma apparently having imbibed of the kool-aid. CO2 is not pollution and the globe is not warming. “Climate change” however is as pervasive and ostensibly supportable, but just as lacking in substance as “family values.”
The seed money from oil companies is just as credible as Congressman Issa’s angel funding that enabled the recall election that ushered in our jolly green governor. In the end it will be less about the companies that funded the signature gathering and more about the regular Californians who may go to sleep periodically, but ultimately won’t be fooled by boondoggles like the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and the real greedy snake oil salesmen who would have us believe we can sustain our economy on intermittent and unreliable pseudo-resources.
The global average temperature anomoly that has been used as the chicken little foundation is far less meaningful than regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, direction and magnitude of wind, and the state of the ocean.
Unfortunately for the green charletans the sense of urgency to act before the people wake from their slumber may have been overcome by regular folks’ need to courageously resist hysteria.
Comment by Normal — 6.22.2010 @ 8:58 pm
Self-delusion is, apparently, a growing disease and it would appear that “Normal” is dangerously afflicted. Digressing into a waste-of-time discussion as to the credibility of “global warming” with some folks is simply too onerous an endeavour with no hope for meaningful exchange, so I will not make the obvious, and irrefutable arguments AGAIN for “Normal.” He/she apparently cannot see the forest for the trees!
However, the more important discussion here is concerning the wisdom of the initiative process with an electorate that is simply so disengaged that leaving important decisions to them is a growing folly. Too often, these are folks who are easily swayed by big money- backed, slick – and typically misleading – ads, commercials, etc. Which, of course, leads to the pressing issue of why in the hell are we allowing wackers from out of state fund such political initiatives? Big problem and one that needs a solution before we run this “democracy” straight into oblivion.
Comment by Sandy Carey — 6.23.2010 @ 12:01 pm
To Normal,
I think you are either joking (my personal hope) or extremely uninfomed. It seems that you think climate change is to be expected and on that point, I completely agree – where we differ is to the root cause. Do you really think the overwhelming evidence – as compiled by as large a consensus of knowledgable individuals\\experts than has ever come together on a single topic – is wrong? Are they part of some huge conspiracy? If the latter, why has it not been even remotely debunked with opposing fact rather than dogmatic and religous views? Your religion is that you hate all liberal and environmental views which I find particularly amusing since this Country was founded on the concept and philosophy of \"liberalsim\" – go look it up and you might surprise youself. Here\’s a hint – look for names like John Locke, Francis Bacon, Mostesquieu, Voltaire, etc.
However, enough of my brief attack on you. Though warranted, I think it is distracting (as your comments are) to the more salient points at hand – namely the validity of global climate change (as it is correctly termed) and the growing lack of reasoned debate which you have done so well here to foster. In an effort to tackle both points head-on, let\’s look at what you actually said and show how ridiculous your rhetoric is:
1) Mr. Lucas is \"…complicit in the green religion dogma apparently having imbibed of the kool-aid.\"
Interesting – since when did fact-based statements and\\or argument become \"kool-aid\"? Not one thing in Mr. Lucas\’ piece is dogmatic in any aspect whatsoever – it\’s all fact: AB32 is a landmark piece of legislation. It does require a steep rollback of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The AB32 suspension is backed largely by big oil. This suspenson would be in effect until the CA unemployment rate drops below 5.5% or less in 4 consecuticve quarters. This suspension would defintitely have the effect of scuttling the state\’s efforts to obtain cleaner electricity. The list goes on – so I CHALLENGE YOU – provide us with a single piece of verbiage in Mr. Lucas\’ piece that is opinion and not based on verifiable fact. THIS JUST IN – YOU CAN\’T.
2) You say that \"…CO2 is not pollution and the globe is not warming.\"
Again – and I hate to kick you when you\’re down – but \"global-warming\" is a misuse of the crisis before us – the correct term is \"global climatic change\" – try and get it right. Further, your comment is nothing short of idiotic and you really need to take a chem 101 class. CO2 definitely has the effect of degrading infra-red energy (i.e HEAT) transmission but I know, I have an unfair advantage given that my pops is a chem professor. Nonetheless, this is pretty basic and lots of folks have already told you this in all of the literature.
3) Your BLAH BLAH BLAH about the global average temperature anomlies being BLAH BLAH BLAH…
I hate to use the BLAH word but honestly, your comments really are just dribble – who are you to say that the changes afoot are meaningless? What evidence or credentials do you have? This is clearly opinon vs. substantitive fact – hence DRIBBLE. Make an argument rather than a rant…
4) GREEN CHARLETANS!!!
Are you serious? Charletans??? Do you even know what that word means? You know what – for everyone\’s sake – stay away from the big people words – just saves you from looking like an idiot. One wonderful virtue being an intellectual and reasoned thinker is that I look to experts (i.e. not charletans) for their research, data, opinion, conclusions, & advice regarding topics that I am not as well versed in. I strongly advise you to do the same. In addition, charletans typically have an ulterior motive when they spin the stories that they do but I ask you, what possible ulterior motive do these \"charletans\" have for spinning a climate change story? Do you think all these researchers, scientists, politicians, & all other manner of concerned citizens have some kind of secret squirrel stake in a bunch of existing or yet to be created companies that will somehow capitalize on a cleaner, healthier, & sustainable environment?
Is the above harsh? YES. Should it be? DEFINITELY. I have zero issue with you or anyone else disagreeing with me or my views but make an argument based on fact and let\’s do the debate dance. Conversely, I have zero patience for folks like you who try to peddle your flip little commentary as though it were cute and had any value or meaning. We are in critical times and it calls for critical thinking, debate, arguments, passion, & solutions and until you can stand and deliver, please just sit in the corner and color.
Comment by Citizen Sane — 6.23.2010 @ 2:31 pm
Not so long ago we relied on expert input to tell us that DDT was problematic and that it should be eradicated worldwide. The music got out of control and many non scientist, like Citizen Sane fell for it. Now hundreds of thousands of people are dying from malaria every year because they are relying on mosquito nets rather than DDT to reduce the risk of infection. But those same loons don’t care that these people are dying it’s not their family. Yes but it’s for the greater good….BS
The fact is that to date we still have not been able to link one case of disease to DDT. Not even if you read the liberal blogs. But the so called scientist (not) are convinced that DDT was a problem. These are not scientist they are people with an agenda. No different than the CO2 loons.
The temperature cycles that we have experienced are in fact trending higher but the better part of the variation is driven by solar activity. Note that temperatures in 2008 and 2009 around the world were cooler than expected and so was solar activity. The impact of CO2 on global temperatures could be best compared to the effect of a flea’s temperature on the core temperature of an elephant.
As for the closing on Sane’s note. As expected when someone disagrees with a progressive they are stupid. Why is that, the progressives don’t have control of the facts , just the rhetoric.
Comment by Juan Valdes — 7.03.2010 @ 2:16 pm