Yesterday the San Diego Union Tribune ran two dueling columns on Prop 23, which would destroy California's green jobs economy and efforts to address global warming. The anti-Prop 23 article, by John Reaves of Citizens Climate Lobby, was a good articulation of the reasons why Prop 23 would be so damaging.

The pro-Prop 23 article, by Bryan Bloom, made a number of deeply flawed statements that need a strong rebuttal. So that's what I'm going to do here, to start off the week. Much of his argument is of the typical "government taxes and regulates too much," but Bloom adds some other pieces that should be dealt with more directly:

A California State University study estimates an average family cost of about $3,900 per year, a small business cost of about $50,000 per year and a total loss of output in the range of $180 billion in order to comply.

But what of the cost of doing nothing? Bloom and Prop 23 backers assume that the cost of doing nothing is zero - that if we "suspend" AB 32, then we save all that money.

This is not so. Climate change costs us all a lot of money already, from higher firefighting costs and home insurance premiums to lost jobs in the wineries and agricultural industries when their work is disrupted by extreme weather events. San Diegans should be concerned about rising sea levels, which won't come cheap.

Bloom's analysis also ignores the fact that AB 32-spurred innovation will help us save money through the development of more efficient uses of energy. California has already led the way on this. Our air pollution laws, the nation's strictest, have dramatically slashed (though by no means eliminated) smog, while also helping spur innovations that save us money at the pump or save on our electrical bills.

Bloom's op-ed also relies on a flawed Legislative Analyst's Office study of AB 32, which I debunked at Calitics a few months back. In fact, there is considerable evidence that AB 32 has already fueled the growth of a green jobs and clean energy economy in California that is one of the only bright spots in our otherwise dismal economic picture.

That dismal economic picture is used by Bloom as justification for "suspending" AB 32:

That’s why so many voters and small businesses are supporting Proposition 23, which would temporarily suspend costly AB 32 regulations until California’s unemployment rate reaches 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters, a threshold reached numerous times in recent years, according to the state’s Employment Development Department.

Notice how Bloom fudges the numbers: "numerous times in recent years." That's because the truth is damning. Since January 1975, the 5.5% for four consecutive quarters threshold has only been met *three times* - and for short periods:

1. November 1988 to August 1990
2. February 2000 to July 2001
3. April 2006 to September 2007

If you believed that climate change was a serious problem, it wouldn't make any sense to support this proposal, which would have action on climate change move only in fits and starts.

And that's even if it were to move at all. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, even if job growth matched the four fastest years of growth during the '00s bubble, we wouldn't be at 2007 levels of employment - required under Prop 23 to revive AB 32 - until April 2021 when you account for population growth. Prop 23 would likely "suspend" AB 32 for *eleven years* - and that's under the best-case economic recovery scenario.

Bloom also argues that California can't solve global warming on its own:

California produces only a tiny fraction of the world’s greenhouse gases. Without the rest of the world following AB 32-like rules, California could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to zero and still have no impact on global warming.

Of course California can't eliminate global carbon emissions on our own. This is obvious and not in dispute. But neither was that the point of passing AB 32. As was widely acknowledged in 2006, AB 32 was passed to kickstart a national and, eventually, global effort to force reduction of carbon emissions. If Prop 23 fails, it will be a huge signal to Congress that real action on climate and energy is popular with voters. Bloom and other right-wingers are actively trying to stop California from providing progressive leadership by destroying AB 32 before it can spread.

Ultimately Bloom's argument rests on a defense of the status quo - that everything is just fine in California, and that all AB 32 offers is higher costs. It only makes sense if you do not believe global warming is a serious issue. If you do, it does not make sense to support Prop 23, as it will ensure California does absolutely nothing to prepare for it or build a more sustainable economy to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

As the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico intensifies, the rest of the oil industry is sitting on the sidelines. Instead of helping clean up the Gulf, many of them are busy spending their money trying to pollute California.

15 oil companies have combined to spend about $2 million to undermine our anti-pollution laws by trying to place a repeal of AB 32 on the November ballot. Led by Valero, Tesoro, and Occidental, they prefer undermining California's effort at creating clean energy and green jobs to helping clean up after what their industry has done in the Gulf.

The Courage Campaign - where I work as Public Policy Director - doesn't think that's right. We are today launching a campaign to demand that instead of spending $2 million to the attack on California's anti-pollution laws, the CEOs of Valero, Tesoro, and Occidental instead pledge to spend $2 million on Gulf cleanup and restoration. You can add your name to our letter and show these oil CEOs that we're not going to stand for their attack on our environment.

During Hurricane Katrina, Wal-Mart helped fund relief and recovery efforts, so there is precedent for other industries getting involved. Yes, this is BP's responsibility. But the oil industry as a whole helped undermine the regulations and enabled the Deepwater Horizon disaster to occur.

In fact, while entire industries are being destroyed, thousands made jobless, and unknown numbers of animal and plant life are being killed, Valero and Tesoro gave another $400,000 to the Dirty Energy Proposition on May 19.

It's time California stood up to these big oil companies and told them to get their priorities straight. Click here to sign our letter, which we will deliver to the CEOs of Valero, Tesoro and Occidental.

Below is the email we sent to our members today.   Read More »

Some big news has been breaking on the anti-AB 32 front in recent days. After Valero got hit by the combined efforts of the Courage Campaign and CREDO Action with our Boycott Valero campaign (note: I work as Public Policy Director for the Courage Campaign), as well as the No on Valero effort, they appear to have called for reinforcements.

As noted in the LA Times story on our Boycott Valero campaign, Los Angeles-based Occidental Petroleum is now part of the coalition trying to undermine AB 32, having donated $300,000 last week to the repeal effort. Oxy was joined by a Missouri think tank, the Adam Smith Foundation, which gave $498,000 to the repeal last week despite having just $30,000 in annual revenues the last two years.

The Courage Campaign has already been fighting Valero and Tesoro, the original oil company backers of the anti-AB 32 initiative. The entry of Oxy and the Adam Smith Foundation (and whoever their real backers are) into the fight shows that our Boycott Valero action is having a powerful impact. Now, on the eve of Earth Day, is precisely the moment to step up our efforts and show these oil companies we won't let them destroy California's environment or our economic future.

That's why the Courage Campaign is launching a fundraising drive to help us build out our campaign to defend AB 32 from the oil companies. We've sunk a *lot* of time and energy into this campaign in the last 3 weeks, and it's becoming clear that we need additional resources to sustain our efforts in the face of the oil company onslaught. Can you donate $25 or more to help us keep up the pressure?

Launching the fundraiser is Rick Jacobs, chair of the Courage Campaign, who knows a little something about Occidental. He was an executive there in the 1980s, working as chief of staff to the CEO and eventually becoming the youngest vice-president in the history of the company. He later left Oxy because he felt they were not being responsible to their shareholders, and today devotes his time to the Courage Campaign as an unpaid Chair, holding corporations and politicians accountable to the progressive values most Californians share.

Jacobs slammed Oxy's participation in the anti-AB 32 effort, in an email to Courage Campaign members across California:

After the first "oil shocks" of the 1970s, I remember being heartened that Oxy was focusing on finding alternatives to oil. Eventually, however, oil became so cheap Oxy stopped that research.

So when I saw that Oxy was joining Valero to kill AB 32, I was disappointed but not really surprised. While the market now craves the green energy alternatives being fueled by AB 32, Oxy and its executives are prioritizing their obscene profits -- and dirty energy -- over our prosperity and environment....

This is David vs. Goliath. That's why it will take meaningful action this Earth Day to stop Oxy and Valero from killing AB 32.

Occidental, Valero, Tesoro, and the other backers of the initiative clearly believe that California's economy and environmental laws should give way to their relentless desire for unlimited profit. Yet oil companies are part of the past, represent a failed 20th century economic model that California has to shed if we are to rebuild prosperity in the 21st century.

AB 32 helps spur a green economy and clean energy jobs by incentivizing more efficient operations of oil companies. It doesn't shut down Oxy, Valero, or Tesoro. It just means they have to make some investments in reducing their carbon emissions. That's not so onerous.

Unfortunately, these folks have spent nearly $2 million to get the anti-AB 32 initiative on the ballot. We can't let them overwhelm grassroots progressive response. Please help us sustain and expand our campaign to stop the oil companies from destroying California's future.

Below is the full email Rick Jacobs sent to Courage Campaign members this morning.   Read More »

Valero CEO Bill Klesse, Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, and the other right-wingers and oil companies trying to destroy California's economy and environmental future by "suspending" AB 32 indefinitely. They've gone around peddling debunked studies claiming AB 32 would hurt jobs (actually, it helps create new, green jobs that are harder to offshore).

And yet for all their efforts, they haven't been able to change the fact that large majorities of Californians support the global warming law and its methods, as the Field Poll found:

In 2006 California passed a new law that requires the state to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that cause global warming by about 17 percent over the next ten years. Generally speaking, do you favor or oppose this new law?

Favor: 58%
Oppose: 38%

One way to achieve this goal is to charge a fee to those companies that release greenhouse gases over their permitted level. The state would then return most of the money collected from this fee back to all state residents either directly or through a reduction in taxes. Generally speaking, do you favor or oppose this proposal?

Favor: 64%
Oppose: 31%

Do you agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat or disagree strongly with the following statement: "I believe California can reduce greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming and expand jobs and economic prosperity at the same time."

Agree: 69%
Disagree: 29%

I'd have liked Next10/Field to ask about using money generated from cap-and-trade fees to fund things like high speed rail, local mass transit operations, and solar panels, but this is still a pretty solid sign that the public is all in favor of the carbon reduction rules AB 32 set up.

In that latter question, "agree" was at 74% in 2008 and 83% in 2007, but 69% is still an enormous amount of support for creating jobs through green technology. There's no way the right-wingers can spin that as anything but a huge rejection of their attack on California's green jobs and global warming action.

Of course, they'll try. That's why Courage Campaign and CREDO are committed to Boycott Valero. Valero CEO Bill Klesse has responded to at least one Courage Campaign member so far - send him a message yourself and remind him that Californians don't want a Texas oil company telling them what to do.

Plus, it's good to see statewide Democratic candidates like Kamala Harris stand up for AB 32 as well.

California's Sarah Palin (aka Meg Whitman) has taken notice of the Courage Campaign radio ad launched today on radio stations across the state educating the public about Whitman's position on global warming. She just sent this email out to her list:

Dear Supporter,

A group of liberal activists headed by Howard Dean's former California campaign chair today launched a negative radio ad attacking Meg Whitman for her common-sense, pro-jobs environmental policies.

Fight back with Meg. She has led the call to put a one-year moratorium on California's AB 32, which has been estimated to negatively affect one million jobs in California. California cannot afford to hastily implement new environmental regulations that could further delay our economic recovery.

Coincidentally, the attack ad debuted on the same day that a new poll was released showing that Meg is beating the likely Democratic nominee Jerry Brown among independent voters.

National Democrats have already named Meg a top target and now the liberal "Courage Campaign" is taking up the call.

See their attack here.

Can we count on you to help beat these special interest groups and restore California? If you can contribute $15, $25 or $50, please link here to help fight back.

It's not surprising that Democrats and their special interest groups are already working hard to try to defeat Meg in the Republican primary. They want their chosen candidate, likely Jerry Brown, to face a different, weaker Republican candidate next November. We are not going to let that happen.

Thank you,
Jillian Hasner
Campaign Manager, Meg Whitman 2010

Some quick points. First, it was indeed entirely coincidental that our ad launched the day the PPIC poll came out. We'd been planning this ad for about a week now, but had no clue that PPIC was even doing a poll, certainly not that they were going to release it today. Not that it would have made any difference.

Contrary to Jillian Hasner's claims, the Courage Campaign does not endorse candidates for elected office. Jerry Brown is not our "chosen candidate" - we don't have one, period.

The Courage Campaign's goal is simply to make the public aware of Whitman's views on global warming legislation. Specifically, that she believes AB 32 should be suspended.

Looks like we've succeeded in that quest. If you want to help get that message aired more broadly on radio stations in California, click here to listen to the ad and donate to expand the buy.