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.

Apparently Carly Fiorina believes she has the Republican US Senate nomination locked up, because now she's going after Barbara Boxer in this ridiculous ad airing on TV stations across California.

The ad features Carly Fiorina saying "Terrorism kills - and Barbara Boxer's worried about the weather." In other words, Fiorina thinks global warming is nothing more than mere weather, that its potential to flood part of the Bay Area, devastate our wine and agricultural industries, worsen fires, and produce statewide water shortages is just mere weather.

Fiorina's attack is intended to mock Boxer's statment that climate change is a national security issue. But do you know who else sees climate change as a national security issue?

The Pentagon:

The National Intelligence Council, which produces government-wide intelligence analyses, finished the first assessment of the national security implications of climate change just last year.

It concluded that climate change by itself would have significant geopolitical impacts around the world and would contribute to a host of problems, including poverty, environmental degradation and the weakening of national governments.

The assessment warned that the storms, droughts and food shortages that might result from a warming planet in coming decades would create numerous relief emergencies.

“The demands of these potential humanitarian responses may significantly tax U.S. military transportation and support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and decreased strategic depth for combat operations,” the report said.

Fiorina's attack shows not only that she is anti-science and apparently supportive of the crippling effects of global warming on California's economy - but that she is also totally delusional about the threats facing this country. She is, in short, as unfit to be in the US Senate as she was unfit to be the CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

She's Silicon Valley's Sarah Palin. No wonder the former Alaska governor endorsed Fiorina.

"A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor
An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science, and Economics of Global Warming

The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels to provide affordable, abundant energy is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use of fossil fuels, no matter the cost.

Is that idea true?"

Find out here   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.

Earlier this week I announced that Courage Campaign was going to produce an ad showing how Meg Whitman is California's Sarah Palin when it comes to global warming legislation. Palin and Whitman both oppose laws that mandate reduction of carbon emissions. Whitman has even said that she will order an indefinite suspension of AB 32 as her *very first act* as governor.

The Courage Campaign thought Californians should know about that. And our members agreed, putting up the money to get this ad produced and now aired on stations in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and the Silicon Valley.

You can hear the ad by clicking this link. And you can donate to help support and expand the ad buy at the same link. Just a few dollars - $25, $50, $100, whatever you can give - will help spread the word.

We've already been getting some earned media attention on this ad. Last night Candy Crowley mentioned it on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360° show. And on Tuesday, Carla Marinucci covered it at the SF Chronicle blog.

We'd love it if you could help us expand the buy. Meg Whitman is blanketing the state with her ads. The Courage Campaign doesn't have those kind of resources, but with your help we can get this ad on more radio stations and hold Whitman accountable.

Over the flip is the transcript of the ad.   Read More »

The new Energy Secretary, UC Berkeley physicist Steven Chu, has offered a chilling warning to California of the consequences of unchecked global warming - consequences we're already witnessing:

"I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen," he said. "We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California." And, he added, "I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going" either....

Chu warned of water shortages plaguing the West and Upper Midwest and particularly dire consequences for California, his home state, the nation's leading agricultural producer.

In a worst case, Chu said, up to 90% of the Sierra snowpack could disappear, all but eliminating a natural storage system for water vital to agriculture.

One of those cities facing severe crisis already is Bolinas, in Marin County:

The oceanside enclave in Marin County has enacted some of the state's toughest water restrictions. Each customer - with the exception of schools and some businesses - may use no more than 150 gallons a day, about 4,500 gallons each month.

A third violation of the order would allow the Bolinas Community Public Utility District to cut off water.

Without drastic cutbacks, officials say, the community of 1,200 could run out of water by the end of April. The town on the southern end of the Point Reyes Peninsula already is drawing from two emergency reservoirs, one of which is effectively empty.

There are a lot of California cities that are nervously watching Bolinas and the dry reservoirs, including Monterey. Sure, we're due to get some rain tonight, but the estimates are that we'll get 1-2 inches tops out of the two storms lined up in the Pacific. At this point we need a deluge reminiscent of March and April 2006 to recharge our reservoirs, severely depleted by three months of drought.

Back to Secretary Chu - he offered a strong warning to Americans about the need to not delay action on global warming and sustainable energy use:

He said the threat of warming is keeping policymakers focused on alternatives to fossil fuel, even though gasoline prices have fallen over the last six months from historic highs. But he said public awareness needs to catch up. He compared the situation to a family buying an old house and being told by an inspector that it must pay a hefty sum to rewire it or risk an electrical fire that could burn everything down.

"I'm hoping that the American people will wake up," Chu said, and pay the cost of rewiring.

One of those who ought to be listening is Senator Barbara Boxer, who was yesterday reported to be working with global warming denier Jim Inhofe to divert $50 billion in transit funding for highways. Massive pressure from transit activists has led Boxer to lessen the damage somewhat but she is still working with Inhofe, for reasons that defy all logic and common sense, and Transportation for America which has led this fight still opposes the amendment.

As the US Senate fiddles, and as the Yacht Party actively seeks to destroy our state's government, California is going dry. The climate crisis is here.

Building A New Energy, Economic, Environmental, Educational Future For Our Country and Our Planet

Democratic candidate for California's 24th Congressional District, Marta Jorgensen has formulated a bold new campaign platform called E-Revolution. She believes this platform, so named for its focus on the strong and productive reform of federal energy, economic, environmental, and educational policies as well as on citizen engagement, is necessary for the United States to compete and survive in the new millennium.

The first pillar of E-Revolution is energy reform. As our older energy sources continue to pollute our environment, make us dependent on foreign governments, and slowly get used up, we must adopt clean, independent, and renewable forms of alternative energy like solar power, wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, and biofuels.

Countries like Denmark, which already gets 25% of its energy from wind power, and Germany, which expects to get 45% of its power from renewable energy sources by 2030, have already recognized the dangers of an addiction to oil and coal. But Marta Jorgensen believes that the United States can meet this challenge head on; we can take back the mantle of energy pioneer we once held by supporting these new technologies with tax breaks and federal mandates.

The second pillar of this platform, economic reform, seeks to return the American economy to the robust strength it once had and to create new Green and higher paying jobs for American workers. This can be done by steering our economy toward alternative energy sources, by making our economy more efficient, by working to overcome global warming, and by creating more favorable trade agreements.

While the American oil and coal industries are losing jobs, renewable alternative energies can create and support millions of new jobs. According to studies, wind power can account for nearly 350,000 jobs, solar power for over 260,000 jobs and $45 billion in economic investment, tidal power for thousands of jobs per plant, geothermal energy for over 20,000 jobs; and biofuel for over 200,000 jobs. California is the natural home for many of these industries, and with them our state's economy, already one of the largest in the world, will surely grow even larger.

We can also make our economy more efficient. For example, one study found that an increase in fuel efficiency standards starting in 2001 could have saved drivers in upstate New York more than $2.4 billion in gas by 2012; the savings for California, with its much bigger economy and many more residents, could have been astronomical. Calling for stricter fuel efficiency standards and supporting the creation of new cars with alternative forms of power like electricity, hydrogen, or fuel cells can make our economy more efficient and each of us better off.

Switching to alternative energies and making our economy more efficient as well as working to reduce pollution and instituting a carbon tax will have the additional and very important effect of helping to ward off the effects of climate change. The costs of untreated global warming is an increase in wildfires, water conservation, public health, agriculture, and flooding could be incalculable; if we take steps now to mitigate those effects, we will be able to sustain and grow our economy far into the future.

In addition, we can take steps to keep our thriving international trade alive and growing while fixing bad trade agreements so that our only exports are American products, not American jobs. We can also address the issue of our crumbling dollar by reducing the federal deficit and paying down the federal debt. These policies form an important part of Marta Jorgensen's platform.

Such sweeping economic reform may sound difficult, but it is nowhere near as hard as keeping our economy beholden to the old energy sources, old technologies, and bad trade agreements that have made our economy so weak. But America is no weakling, and Marta Jorgensen believes that we are strong enough and motivated enough to do what we must to secure success for our economy.

The third pillar of change in E-Revolution, environmental reform, is closely related to Jorgensen's call for both energy and economic reform. We face serious peril from the effects of global warming, including a catastrophic rise in sea level, widespread drought, and myriad extinctions in plant and animal species all over the planet, effects that will change our world for the worse. But Marta Jorgensen thinks we can change the world for the better; Marta Jorgensen has a plan.

First, she calls for freezing carbon emissions and instituting a carbon tax, which will go a long way to reduce any further impact we might have on the atmosphere. But we also need to further reduce our creation of greenhouse gases by instituting a moratorium on coal plants not outfitted with carbon capture features, calling for the replacement of inefficient incandescent light bulbs, and building a more efficient electrical grid. In concert, these changes will drastically reduce our negative impact on the environment.

Of course, while we in the United States bear well more than our fair share of responsibility for global warming, we cannot address this problem alone. That is why Marta Jorgensen will call for a new and stronger global treaty, more effective than the Kyoto Protocol and with a closer compliance date, and she will do all she can to make sure that this time, we sign on and we stay on.

The final pillar of E-Revolution, educational reform, centers on the need to teach our children how to succeed in an E-Revolution world. We need programs to teach them how to work on a wind farm, how to design a better solar panel, and how to build a more efficient energy grid. We need to make sure that they know how important our environment is what they can do as individuals to make sure we maintain it. In short, we need comprehensive environmental education, and we need to do it on the national level.

The four pillars of E-Revolution are closely related; if one of them fails, the success of the whole project would be cast into doubt. Without energy reform to create new jobs in alternative energies and to make the economy more efficient, true economic reform is impossible, and without a switch to cleaner energy sources, true environmental reform is impossible. Without economic reform to create and maintain alternative energies, true energy reform is impossible, and without a more sustainable economy, true environmental reform is impossible. Without environmental reform to wean us off our addiction to fossil fuels, true energy reform is impossible, and without an environmental policy that seeks to overcome the problems of global warming, true economic reform is impossible. And unless we have educational reform to teach our children how to thrive in this new world, all the gains of the rest of the project will be for naught.

We need to make E-Revolution a reality; we need to elect Marta Jorgensen.Please support Marta Jorgensen's campaign to unseat Republican Elton Gallegly in California's 24th Congressional District.

Visit her website at: www.jorgensenforcongress.com.
805-742-0163 headquarters - jorgensenforcongress08@gmail.com