NO on Prop 23: How You Can Help Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition
Posted October 7, 2010 in Curbing Pollution, Health and the Environment, Moving Beyond Oil, Solving Global Warming, U.S. Law and Policy
Dear Californians: when you grab your November ballot from the mailbox, make sure to wash your hands afterwards. This one’s doused in dirty oil dollars.
Two nefarious Texas oil companies are spending whatever it takes to bankroll the dirtiest energy proposition we’ve ever seen in California. This proposition would not only dismantle our clean energy economy – shutting down good jobs that the hardworking people of California need – but it would also threaten the health of our children and our communities. That is Prop 23, in a horrible nutshell.
So why would a couple of out-of-state oilers spend millions of dollars to sway the California public? The answer is clear: they want to eradicate California’s innovative, growing clean energy businesses and keep Californians dependent on costly oil. And all this so that they can keep lining their bulging pockets with more of our hard-earned money.
Four years ago, California passed a nation-leading clean air law (AB 32) that holds polluters accountable and spurs innovation and investment in our state. The law had support from across the board: Republicans, Democrats, businesses, investors, and environmental groups alike. Since its passage, billions of dollars in investments have poured into our economy, launching California to the forefront of the clean technology industry. And it’s put our state on the path to dramatically reduce global warming pollution by 2025, setting a strong example for the rest of the nation and the world.
But not everyone is excited about cleaning up California’s air and industries.
Big Oil companies Valero and Tesoro have launched an attack campaign against California’s landmark clean air law. Prop 23 would give Big Oil and other polluters a free ride, fouling our air and killing competition in California’s most vibrant economic sector. With more than 12,000 clean tech companies in California, we can’t afford to let dirty Texas Oil send us backwards.
That’s why businesses, health experts, investors, city governments, environmental groups, and virtually all of California’s major newspapers have condemned Prop 23. The American Lung Association of California, Google, eBay, Shell, Nike, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, City of Los Angeles, and CA League of Conservation Voters are just a few members of the national coalition aimed at defeating Prop 23. For a complete list, click here.
But even with such a strong coalition in place, the vote on Prop 23 will come down to the wire. Big Oil has millions of dollars to burn, and we need your help.
Here’s what you can do to help defeat the dirty energy proposition:
- Register to vote here. Voting by mail started on October 4th. Cast your vote early against Prop 23. Ensure that your voice is heard.
- Join the coalition to defeat Prop 23. Encourage your friends, family, local businesses, and community groups to do the same.
- On October 10, host a calling party to get the word out about Texas Oil’s deceptive tactics.
- Get all the facts on Prop 23 here. Stay up-to-date by following the No on 23 campaign on Facebook and Twitter.
- Take a few minutes to email your friends, urging them to join you in opposing Prop 23.
Proposition 23 is a threat to our jobs, our health, the future for our children and California’s way of life. Help us stop these thieving Texas Oil companies from buying up votes and destroying our clean air with their greasy corporate dollars.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Paul Burke — Oct 7 2010 03:24 PM
"WE WILL HAVE OIL FOR KNIVES"-Nostradamus.
Wayne — Oct 7 2010 05:48 PM
Neither Valero nor Tesoro is "Big Oil" Both are independent refiners, not oil producers, who have 2 refineries each in California.
AB32 does NOTHING for climate change, even the governors staff admits that.
Even CARB’s own economic experts have recognized the fact that jobs will be lost because of AB 32. In fact, they recommend establishing a “Worker Transition Program” to provide assistance to people who lose their jobs because of AB 32 regulations.
Wayne — Oct 8 2010 05:57 PM
Points to ponder on AB 32:
° Sacramento State University reports estimated cost of $3734 per year per family due strictly to this AB 32.
° CARB has admitted that California alone cannot have an inpact on reducing global warming and CO2 emissions.
° US EPA acknowledges that US action alone will not impact the world CO2 levels;
° US EPA (11 July 2010) said that bills in Congress will not reduce the total use of gas and oil of 20 million
gallons per day for decades.
° LAO (CA Legislative Analyst Office) stated: CA economy at large will be adversely affected by implementation of
climate-related policies that are not in place elsewhere. (Letter to Dan Logue, 13 May 2010)
° AB 32 does nothing for local pollution, nor does Proposition 23 do anything to increase local pollution.
° 5.5% unemployment for 4 consecutive quarters has occurred 7 times since 2005, 14 times since 1999, and 22 times
since 1987.
When the loudest objections to any candidacy or initiative are focused on vilifying its financial backers, this
often indicates that its opponents' arguments on its merits are weak.
Vote yes on Prop 23 and suspend AB32.
Roger Sowell — Oct 10 2010 02:15 PM
The choice seems abundantly clear: vote to keep AB 32 in place and hope that the government knows what they are doing and will keep their word (and has that ever been the case in the USA, and especially California?), and that each person will indeed get that promised and precious $5 extra in their pocket every week, and electric power prices will only increase 13 percent, and every homeowner will rush out to replace all the appliances and install solar panels, and every driver will immediately purchase a new car that achieves 35 miles per gallon, and every business will find some way to reduce their CO2 emissions below their cap level and sell carbon credits.
Or, recognize what business schools around the world (including the prestigious Harvard Business School) have taught for years (because it is a fundamental truth), that reducing one's costs of doing business is the way to grow and prosper a business. Increasing the cost of utilities, and transportation for goods received and for goods shipped, when one's competitors are not burdened with similar costs, is not the way to grow and prosper. Instead, it is a recipe for bankruptcy. Recognize that few homeowners have the ready cash, or credit, to purchase new appliances, and then recognize that many residences in California are rentals such as apartments. Rental apartments will not usually allow the renter to install new appliances, indeed, the only appliance the renter can replace is his own refrigerator. Not the washer, the dryer, the dishwasher, and certainly not the stove or oven. If the landlord replaces these, then rents will go up to pay for them. That will certainly wipe out that $5 per week that California promises will appear in every person's pocket.
full comment is at
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/california-voters-to-decide-ab-32-fate.html
Henny Wang — Oct 15 2010 07:18 PM
No body argues that AB32 alone won't solve the global warming problem. Everyone has to cut their share of green house gas emission. But I will be very proud to be a Californian if we lead the way towards that goal. Someone has to take the lead, right? If the wealthy state of California doesn't lead the nation, if the wealthy nation of United States doesn't lead the world, aren't you ashamed when China leads the clean energy development, leaving us the image of selfish Americans who just care about money in our own pocket and not the future of our children and the whole world?
Unfortunately that's already happening. What I heard is that China is the leading producer of solar panels and wind turbines today. Many other developing countries are also out-pacing the US.
And you still want to follow the oil companies on prop 23?!