Greenspace

Environmental news from California and beyond

« Previous | Greenspace Home | Next »

Prop. 23 campaigns go head-to-head in TV spots

No 23 TV spot
The battle over California’s global warming law moved to the airwaves Tuesday with both sides launching TV commercials. Backers of Proposition 23, a November ballot measure to suspend the law that would clamp down on greenhouse gas pollution, aired a 30-second spot in Sacramento, the Central Valley and San Diego.

The ad opens with a woman in a well-to-do suburban neighborhood collecting her mail, entering a spacious, sunlit home and saying “I have enough bills. Now the politicians are putting a new energy tax on us to pay for California’s global warming plan.” The ballot measure, it says, will prevent a 60% increase in electricity rates and save a million jobs.

The No on Prop 23 campaign began airing a 15-second spot and a 30-second spot statewide. It opens with a shot of windmills, saying, "California is outlining a clean energy future, a growing workforce of bright Californians who harness wind and solar power to move our state forward. But two Texas oil companies have a deceptive scheme to take us backwards.” 

Proposition 23 would suspend the state's 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as AB 32, until unemployment in the state drops to 5.5% for a year -- a level reached only three times in the last four decades. California's joblessness rate is currently more than 12%, and the measure would have the likely effect of indefinitely postponing a series of measures designed to wean the state from burning fossil fuels.

The measure is largely funded by two Texas-based oil companies, Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp, which own refineries in California that could be forced to retool under the climate law. Backers also include Kansas-based Koch Industries, owned by the two billionaire Koch brothers who have been active in fighting federal climate legislation.

The TV campaign came as environmentalists geared up an extensive grassroots effort. Monday night, 45,123 people joined a statewide conference call with Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune and Bonnie Holmes-Gen of the American Lung Assn. -- part of a group of 230,000 voters identified as infrequent, but environmentally-oriented by the California League of Conservation Voters.

Yes on Prop. 23 campaign spokeswoman Anita Mangels said that no similar grassroots effort was underway by the those supporting the proposition. However, "tea party" activists were to rally in Fresno Tuesday against Prop 23.

The spot advocating for the ballot measure can be viewed on the Yes on 23 campaign's website.

The spots opposing the ballot measure can be viewed on the No on 23 campaign's website.

-- Margot Roosevelt

RECENT AND RELATED: 

Prop 23 shows a dead heat among California voters

Proposition 23: Environmentalists power up

Billionaire Koch brothers back suspension of California climate law

Mayor Villaraigosa: Go home Texas oil companies

Image: A screengrab from the No on 23 campaign TV spot, which is aimed at Texas-based oil companies seeking to suspend California's global warming law. Credit: No on 23

 
Comments () | Archives (6)

The comments to this entry are closed.

The science is absolutely clear about the relationship between CO2 on the climate. Yes, it's a greenhouse case and yes man is adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but the flawed idea that the relatively small intrinsic effect of CO2 is amplified by positive feedback is demonstrably incorrect. The data unambiguously tells us that the net feedback acting on the climate is negative, which attenuates, rather than amplifies the small intrinsic effect. One reason for the confusion is because climate science uses the meaningless metric of degrees per W/m^2 to quantify climate system gain (sensitivity), when a dimensionless ratio of power densities is the more appropriate metric. The second reason is that Hansen and Schlesinger both misrepresented the open loop gain as being one and that from this incorrect assumption, the lunacy of carbon guilt gained momentum.

Consider that the net amplification of solar power arriving at the surface, relative to emitted surface power (temperature) is about 1.6. The net amplification required to support the speculative 3C rise from doubling CO2 that the IPCC promotes is closer to 8. The only way that the IPCC speculation can be true is if Conservation of Energy, Plank's Law of radiation the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and basic thermodynamics are found to be invalid.

I agree with 'G' that you should examine the science. You can sagely ignore evidence of change, evidence that man is putting CO2 into the atmosphere and evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas as all these do is suggest a coincidence and anyone with a brain understands the difference between causation and correlation. Besides, none of this is at all controversial. Look for science which supports the flawed idea that positive feedback amplifies CO2 effects. No such science exists or ever will and without this, the whole idea of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) collapses in on itself. This is just one of many ways to falsify CAGW.

Please stop patronizing the Valero gas stations. Valero Oil initiated and is financing Prop. 23.

Go down the street to the Shell station instead. Shell Oil has come out against Prop. 23. Vote with your money, as well as with your ballot.

Big Oil wins either way - who do you think is building the Big Solar and Big Wind power plants? CHEVRON, SHELL, BP, STATOIL, ETC.

This is just another straw man to pretend that somehow ALL Big Energy isn't the problem when it is. Taxpayers, homeowners, ratepayers AND the environment ALL WIN when we implement feed in tariffs so WE can produce clean power on our own rooftops and be paid fairly for it.

UCLA and the LA Business Council did a study on a very timid Feed In Tariff for LA, even though a much, much bigger one is needed. Even with their tiny little proposal, it would only cost households ~48 cents/month for the first 10 years THEN WOULD SAVE ALL RATEPAYERS MONEY FOR 20 YEARS, while shifting our energy economy to a clean, decentralized, healthy one.

This should have even the Paul Taylors of the world jumping for joy, even though they hate the planet. Oil, Coal and Gas are going UP in price, there is no question. Do you want to stabilize and reduce energy costs? If so, a widespread feed in tariff for rooftop solar is the way to go. This also creates 2-3 times as many jobs as Big Solar and Big Wind (without losing any jobs), and the financial benefits stay on Main Street, and are not sent to some faraway corporate HQ. Taxpayers pay nothing more than the 30% Investment Tax Credit we already pay.

Feed in Tariffs are a solution to both sides of Prop 23. They will create huge amounts of local, well-paid jobs, improve our property values, stimulate local economies, spare millions of acres of wilderness from destruction, ALL WHILE REDUCING GHGS FAR MORE THAN BIG SOLAR/BIG WIND AND CLEANING AND STABILIZING THE GRID.

It's Big Energy of all types against Ratepayers, Taxpayers and the Planet. Which side are you on?

Here's a website about the science of climate change. Check it out!

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

Over the last thirty years, Californians have developed a fetish for environmental causes. With little or no concern for the costs or provable benefits of these green initiatives, California has embedded exorbitant costs in all services, products, fuels, land uses and daily activities in the solemn belief that all environmental issues must receive immediate government attention and funding. Litigious, fear mongering eco-groups have brainwashed legions of followers that will leap over a cliff to save a wayward Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly. Capitalism, corporate profits, and ultimately, prosperity are the enemies of environmental activism. And, you the taxpayer pick up the tab for all of their theatrics.

The green fetish has driven California to spend on reflex, rather than reality. The U.S. spends about 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) on environmental controls. California probably spends twice that for environmental regulations, enforcements, energy subsidies and gratuitous taxes at both state and local levels. California environmentalists are a partisan political special interest, and are as militant and destructive as the labor unions that have spent the state into endless budget deficits.

Before the economic recession, Californians blindly approved the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32) that mandates 2012 reductions of greenhouse gases through carbon taxes, and alternative and renewable fuel subsidies. All new climate laws increase the unit production costs and corresponding consumer prices of all goods and services. A study by the Governor's Small Business Advocate reports that small businesses pay more than $134,000 each in annual California regulatory costs – significantly in green regulations. Estimates are that the total cost of California regulations is about $493 billion annually – the equivalent of 3.8 million jobs. A.B. 32 could cost the state an additional 1 million in job losses with its cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels.

California voters can delay the California Global Warming Solutions Act (A.B. 32) by voting for Prop. 23 November 2nd. Prop. 23 would suspend implementation of A.B. 32 until the state’s unemployment rate is reduced to below 5.5%. California’s high 2010 unemployment (12%) has been approached twice in the last 30 years – in 1982 (11%) and 1992 (10%). In each of these economic downturns, it took 5 to 7 years of economic recovery to achieve the target 5.5% unemployment.

What is clear in California is that partisan ideologies and cultish environmentalism have replaced prudent science and economic realities in climate policy. What is also clear is that radical environmentalism no longer offers any product or service in support of our future security and prosperity. Militant environmentalism and green-obsessed bureaucrats have become an “axis of antagonism” that we can no longer afford.
VOTE YES PROP 23

Before the storm of anti-science right-wing denial drivel descends on this page, I would just like to encourage anyone on the fence about this issue to look at the science. Find out what climate scientists say... it's vastly different than what the angry bloggers assert with their handful of rogues and amateurs. Go to the source as much as possible. Unless you believe it's a global conspiracy of scientists in collaboration with the UN to impose one-world-government. In that case, God help you. And us.


Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

Recent News
Invitation to connect on LinkedIn |  December 12, 2013, 9:58 am »
New Cook Islands Shark Sanctuary proposed |  December 8, 2011, 8:00 am »

Categories


Archives