You and I know it was never about facts, it was about hyping the green dream. Just look at the numbers. First from the opposition:
Of course they don’t dare mention the amount of money their side has put into it, because, well, that would look imbalanced. Now have a look at the other side of the issue from the legislator who spearheaded the effort:
Logue: Big money beat Proposition 23
AB32 was passed and signed by the governor in 2006. It provides that between 2012 and 2020 greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced to 1990 levels.
Proposition 23 would have postponed implementing major parts of AB32 until the state’s unemployment rate stood at 5.5 percent for a year. Now the jobless rate is around 12 percent.
In June, when Proposition 23 qualified for the ballot, the Enterprise-Record interviewed Logue and Robin Huffman of the Chico-based Butte Environmental Council. At that time, Logue was thrilled, and Huffman expressed concern.
Full story here at the Chico Enterprise Record
Here’s the REAL “dirty secret”, from the LA Times:
But it was pure spin. As they say in the movie, “Follow the money.”
Two Texas-based oil refiners, along with California business trade associations and anti-tax activists thought they could halt the nation’s most ambitious effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions. But they were able to raise only $10.6 million. Most of California’s biggest companies, including Chevron, Pacific Gas & Electric and Sempra Energy, stayed neutral or actively opposed the initiative.
Backers were steamrolled by a $31.2 million campaign funded by such wealthy philanthropists as San Francisco hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, such big environmental groups as the National Wildlife Federation and the ClimateWorks Foundation, and such Silicon Valley green-tech moguls as John Doerr and Vinod Khosla.
10.6 million from “big oil”
31.2 million from “big green”
Yep, that’s some dirty secret alright. But you won’t see this reported on one side news outlets or green blogs.
There’s lot of hype about green jobs, but read this from a man who actually created some of them:
I know firsthand about green jobs. SunPower Corp., a company I chair and the second-largest U.S. producer of solar cells, has produced about 800 green jobs in California. But that’s just a fraction of the 4,700 jobs lost when Toyota pulled the plug on its local Nummi automotive plant due to the high cost of doing business in California.
That “pull the plug” meme will be repeated again and again in the coming months.
And then there’s this absolute rubbish:
Here’s why, when you look at California’s energy supply…
Energy Generation in California: Source: Figure E-1
California Energy Commission – http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009_energypolicy/
…and you see all that hydro, nuclear, natural gas, and renewables, you have to ask yourself: “where’s the dirty energy problem?”
With coal making up only 18.2%, “dirty energy” and up to 40% of the electricity coming from out of state (remember Enron’s manipulation of California?) “dirty energy” was really a non-issue.
But when we are talking green jobs, green energy, green money, green envy or just about anything else “green”, such facts don’t matter.
Congratulations to California, you got the government and legislation you deserve.
Maybe Keith Olberman of MSNBC will name me the “worst person in the world” for writing this fact check. Oh, wait.
It looks like virtually everyone missed the ball on this one. Why wasn’t much money spent in favor of Prop 23? Because the real action was in Prop 26, which requires a 2/3 vote of the legislature for a very broad set of “fee” hikes. It looks like the cap and trade fees that would come up under the AB32 “global warming” law will fall under this new Prop 26 requirement — CARB could not just impose them, as it has been planning.
Chevron spent nothing in support of Prop 23, but millions in support of Prop 26!
It appears that at the very least, cap and trade opponents will now be able to tie it up in court for years.
I believe the phrase… stupid is as stupid does.. is the proper term..
California in its stupidity failed… Time to cut off the welfare from the FED and let them learn the hard way….
I give it till 2012 and they reverse their thinking…
Re green dream: Just checked the cost of electricity – it has been said that the Danes pay the most on the planet, and my google search ended up with 25 Eurocent a kWh for Denmark. Germany a close second with 22. Next year we’ll be at 24 in Germany, and given the growth of PV in Germany i expect us to take the crown from Denmark in 2012. Maybe California wants to enter the race to the top?
I heard this driving home here in L.A.
There might be a few problems for AB 32 funding after us stupid Californians voted down 23, its called proposition 26. “Proposition 26 requires a two-thirds supermajority vote in the California State Legislature to pass many fees, levies, charges and tax revenue allocations that under the state’s previous rules could be enacted by a simple majority vote. Supporters of Proposition 26 called it the Stop Hidden Taxes initiative, saying that fees, levies, and so on imposed by the California government amount to taxes, and should therefore require the same supermajority vote required to enact income or sales tax increases.”
Getting a 2/3 majority for the upcoming “fees” may be the needed monkey wrench.
Mary Nichols said they are going to have to take a closer look at it.
We will see.
Jeez… when are deniers going to learn that money used to defeat efforts to roll back environmentalism which is gonna save the earth is GOOD money, and that money used to promote efforts to turn the earth into a flaming pyre is BAD money and will always have more influence and weight than good money and must be exposed at every turn? Sheesh.
Congratulations to California, you got the government and legislation you deserve.
When voting at the ballot box has failed you, there is still the option of voting with your feet.
Will the last person leaving California please disconnect the LED from the solar panel?
Perhaps the people of California just want clean air, and water. It did win by 60% to 40%.
Maybe, they’re looking back at 2008 when coal jumped from $30.00 ton to $140.00 (before settling back to $60.00/ton,) and figuring that maybe that was a portent of the future.
Could be they noticed that non-polluting wind, and solar is getting steadily cheaper, and fossil fuels are on a long-term uptrend.
Maybe they really are, “thinking of the Grand-kids.”
Curt and the others have it right on Prop 26. Prop 23 was a head fake, and they went for it. Now they are in for a post election surprise.
As for the state as a whole, it will ultimately need a federal bail out. The only question is “when.” It may be billed as “too big to fail” as in the big financial houses. Some aid may come via the executive, but the Congress is apt to stop it cold as other states will not want to foot the bill. Then California will face the music. Of course the people who created the mess will not be blamed. Scapegoats will be needed; it will be “Round up the usual suspects” time — big oil, the Chinese, the right wing conspiracy….
Bill Gates gave $700,000 to the No on Prop 23 campaign:
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1272754&view=late2
The others can be found here:
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/Detail.aspx?id=1324800&session=2009
Not sure why Gates gave but he is getting chummy with his fellow billionaires over charity giving so they may have convinced him to toss in some spare change.
Robert Phelan, I like your sarcasm. Perhaps we should all take advantage of the subsidies and use arc lamps to generate power from our solar cells – even at night – ha, ha, ha.
Of course, the poor don’t laugh when they can no longer afford food because more money is made in burning it as fuel. The net production of energy is actually lower because of all the fossil energy required to fertize, harvest, ferment and finally transport that “biofuel” to the market.
In reality, we could have just poured gasoline on the crops and torched them to produce the same effect.
Bill D ,
Yeah , but as Ron White says , ” You can’t fix stupid .”
Let’s see…
Prop 23 Pro = $10.6 million
Prop 23 Con = $31.2 million
total: $41.8 million
Man, that sure sounds like a lot of money – wonder where it all went really?
Unemployment in California is actually over 22%, according to this gubment website.
http://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm
Oh well, almost $42 million changed hands and not a thing changed, but someone must have gotten a job out of it.
I do not pretend to be au fait with US politics let alone its details but there is an interesting article up at NC watch, listed on this board, but I cannot link, which points out that it is prop 26 which passed and requires a two thirds majority to raise taxes and fees that may actually derail 23.
If true no doubt the whole thing will end up in the courts for some years: and may never even see the light of day again. Who knows?
Kindest Regards
Anthony, I’m afraid Olby won’t be doing WPITW on you, not because he stopped doing it, but because he’s been yanked off the air. heh. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving man, er…boy. Bathtub Boy that is.
IIRC Vinod Khosla has investments in green energy. Of course this is out of the goodness of his heart and his motives are pure and beyond reproach.
R Shearer says; In reality, we could have just poured gasoline on the crops and torched them to produce the same effect.
Sorry but that is too subtle for the green numbskulls. You will have to be more direct and use smaller words; reality has 4 syllables, gasoline is a dirty word, and effect is beyond comprehension.
“Use food as fuel: people starve” – see! only one multisyllable word andit is easy to understand.
I thought the more interesting vote was the one against legalising marijuana. Looks like the hippies voted it down in order to avoid another tax increase. A bit like proposition 26. Anyway, the marijuana proposition seems to have got them out to vote blue and green. Quite smart, really.
Rod Grant: “Use food as fuel: people starve” Now you’re getting the idea.
From Kum Dollison on November 5, 2010 at 7:22 pm:
This is what is the stupidest part of the Green Progressive agenda. Fight Global Warming based on the Precautionary Principal, do all these things “for the grandchildren” “just in case.” While saddling them with real debts, local and national, that will doom those grandchildren to economic mediocrity and lower standards of living than otherwise. Indeed, currently they’re “saving” those grandchildren while screwing up their future and that of their grandchildren’s grandchildren as well. They’re doing many decades worth of serious real economic harm to avert what sure looks like nothing more than a possible long-term nuisance.
This ain’t making the kiddies wear bicycle helmets to protect them in an accident. What they have done and want to do is cutting off their legs to keep them from ever being on a bicycle thus making sure they don’t have the possibility of an accident.
If they really think those following them will be so pathetic they’ll be unable to withstand the challenges of the possible negative effects of global warming so they must remove that possible problem for the sake of those descendants, how can they be so sanguine about leaving them such very real economic hardships?
Heck, why are the young people who are most passionate about fighting global warming, mainly because they don’t want their own futures messed up, most willing to support exorbitant social spending and ruinous “green initiatives” that will haunt them for their entire working lives, even when we “old geezers” will be hitting up these young whippersnappers for our federally-guaranteed retirement funds? They’ll be paying the lion’s share for this “progress” they want, not us!
You’ve got it Curt and others, Proposition 26 could geld AB32…. here are some links re: Prop 26:
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/11/03/03greenwire-califs-little-noticed-prop-26-squeaks-through-59912.html
and….
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/11/the-sneaky-threat-that-could-cripple-californias-climate-law/66137/
and this is the best one….
http://cdn.law.ucla.edu/SiteCollectionDocuments/Environmental%20Law/Paying%20for%20Pollution.pdf
This is California we’re talking about. They think they’re smarter. So they go for green things thinking they’re doing it because they’re smarter. How many businesses moving out of California will it take before they stop this stupidity? When the pain of their stupid actions hurts them in the pocket book more then they want it too they’ll suddenly find a new way to be smarter.
Kadaka, This has nothing to do with “global warming.” I’ve said from the start that global warming was a crock. I’m looking at it from an economic, and “future cost of fuel” standpoint (as well as a “pollution in general” view.)
I simply think it makes sense to start preparing for the escalation in the cost of fossil fuels that is on the horizon.
Re dirty energy. The phrase, as used by the pro-AB 32 folks I’ve met, means gasoline, diesel, and heavy fuel oil burned by ships.
Their plan, as explained to me, is to eliminate petroleum-powered vehicles in California in favor of electric vehicles. That one move would eliminate “dirty” oil refineries, the stinking vapors from gasoline stations, plus the mega-tons of NOx and particulate emissions from cars and trucks and buses. They claim that NOx causes low-level ozone, and that causes asthma especially in children.
There is only one problem with their plan. There are no adequate electric vehicles. This does not deter them, in fact, it is part of the basis for their green jobs claims. Apparently, thousands of Silicon Valley companies and their genius employees are working feverishly to develop the light-weight but ultra-powerful batteries that will be required for the millions of cars and trucks and buses that are on the roads in California.
I know, however, that those who are working in that field flunked basic physics. Fifteen pounds of gasoline weighs about 78 pounds, perhaps 90 pounds total when one includes the weight of the gasoline tank. Those fifteen gallons will propel a car 450 miles, if the car achieves 30 miles per gallon. We are a long, long way from achieving a battery that will propel a 4-passenger car 450 miles, even by granting it more weight from replacing the heavy gasoline engine with lighter-weight electric motors on the wheels. It seems that I read that the Chevrolet Volt will proceed about 40 miles on its battery. But then, that “dirty” gasoline engine kicks in to run a generator that provides electricity to the electric motors.
Moving a fully loaded 80,000 pound semi-tractor-trailer rig at 70 miles per hour, or a bit slower if it must cross the Sierra mountains at Donner Pass on I-80, using electric power from batteries is simply not possible with today’s batteries. The pass is at an elevation of 7,085 feet above sea level. An awful lot of energy is required to move an 80,000 pound load over a vertical distance of almost a mile and one-half. The battery that can do that is still a dream.
dkkraft says:
November 5, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Sir. I did not know of your references but very interesting they are too.
Tee Hee. What fun. I am no lawyer, but necessarily skilled in reading and interpreting both the law as draughted, UK and US, and also regulations intended to implement, or indeed sidestep that law.
All I can say is whoever drew up 26 knew exactly what they were about: and it snuck under the wire. Unnoticed.
And what a problem that is going to be for the State of California which has specialised in disguising taxes as fees.
I suppose 26 can be repealed by some mechanism: but what I do not pretend to know.
For make no mistake 26 is intended to hamstring an overweening administration and its bureaucrats by simply preventing them from raising revenue under the guise of chargeable fees. It really is very clever. And smarter than the original idea that turned taxes into supposedly chargeable fees for specific purposes: something California has abused for many years.
If there is one thing of which I am sure by slowly strangling, and no doubt there will be long legal cases, it will finally bankrupt California. Unless the federal government bails it out yet again. Time will tell.
Absolutely fascinating.
Kindest Regards