Greenspace

Environmental news from California and beyond

« Previous | Greenspace Home | Next »

Proposition 23 poll shows a dead heat among California voters

Valero protest mariah latphotog

California voters believe global warming is a significant issue and are inclined to trust scientific views on the subject, but they remain closely divided on a November ballot measure that would suspend the state's global warming statute, according to a new Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California poll.

California’s global warming law, passed in 2006, is aimed at slashing greenhouse gas emissions by power plants, factories and vehicles.

The ballot initiative, Proposition 23, would delay implementation of the law until California unemployment drops to 5.5% and stays at that level for a year. Unemployment is now over 12%, and a sustained level at or below 5.5% has rarely been achieved, so environmental advocates argue that the initiative would in effect put the law on indefinite hold.

More than two-thirds of likely voters in the survey said that global warming is a “very important” or “somewhat important” issue to them. And more than four in 10  likely voters said they have “complete” or “a lot” of trust in what scientists say on the subject, with more than two in 10 saying they have a “moderate” amount of trust.

On the ballot measure itself, the survey showed that about one-fifth of likely voters had not yet taken a position. Forty percent favor the initiative and 38% oppose it, essentially a dead heat. Typically, experts say that a ballot initiative that has less than 50% support at this stage of a campaign faces trouble because undecided voters usually -- although not always -- tend to end up voting no.

Full results of the Times/USC poll on the races for governor and U.S. Senate will be available Sunday.

Campaigns for and against Proposition 23 are just now gearing up. But candidates in California's sharply contested gubernatorial and Senate races are already attacking each other over Proposition 23, which is a litmus test for many green-leaning voters.

La-me-poll-climate In the battle to succeed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Democrat Jerry Brown opposes the measure. Republican Meg Whitman said Thursday that she will vote against the initiative, but would nonetheless suspend the global warming law for a year if she is elected.

In the Senate race, incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, opposes Prop. 23, while her GOP rival Carly Fiorina has endorsed it.

The initiative's main funders are Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp., two Texas-based oil companies with refineries in California, along with Koch Industries, a Kansas-based oil conglomerate that has fought federal climate change legislation.

The survey of 1,511 registered voters, including 887 considered likely voters, was conducted for The Times and the University of Southern California College of Letters, Arts & Sciences between September 15 and 22. The polling was conducted by two national survey research firms, the Democratic firm of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and the Republican firm American Viewpoint. The margin of error for the likely voter sample is plus or minus 3.3 percentage points.

Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere, warming temperatures on land and in the oceans, according to scientific studies. California has begun to feel the effects, with rising sea levels, the disruption of habitats for plants and animals, and diminishing mountain snowpacks that are critical to the state's water supply.

California's global warming law, also known as AB 32, is the most sweeping in the nation, requiring greenhouse gas pollution to be slashed to 1990 levels by the end of the decade, and setting a goal of an 80% reduction by mid-century.

Over time, the law would affect nearly every industry and household in the state, with regulations to cut the carbon intensity of gasoline, require auto companies to build more fuel-efficient cars, force electrical utilities to switch to solar and wind energy, make buildings and appliances more energy-efficient and encourage denser development with access to public transportation.

The findings of the Los Angeles Times/USC poll are similar to a July poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, a non-partisan think tank. Two-thirds of Californians in the PPIC survey said they favored the existing greenhouse gas law, but likely voters were evenly split on whether the state should “take action right away” or “wait until the state economy and job situation improve to take action.”

--Margot Roosevelt

RELATED:

Prop 23: Environmentalists power up

Prop 23: Oil Giants are divided

Prop 23: Terrorism vs. Gas Price Hikes?

Billionaire Koch Brothers back suspension of California Climate law

Video: USC professors discuss poll results

Photo: An activist opposing Proposition 23 hands out a flier to a passing motorist at a rally in front of a Valero gas station on Sept. 18.  Credit: Mariah Tauger / Los Angeles Times

 
Comments () | Archives (74)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Proposition 23 is all about mitigating some of the most severe consequences that AB 32 (Global Warming Initiative) is poised to unleash on the people and businesses of California. Why is it that there are very few members of the general voting public who display a clear understanding of its contents? Could it be because less that 1% of the voting California public had absolutely no say in its passing by the State Assembly?

AB 32 will have no effect on reducing pollution and global warming, because of the Global nature of the issue. It will further bolster an unelected and hostile to business CARB (California Air Resources board) with unheard of levels of authority to tax, fine, and regulate the businesses of this state to death. GHG’s (green house gas) emissions to the atmosphere would actually increase under AB 32, because the fuels once produced by the more environmentally conscious facilities in California would need to be imported from out of State and Asia, where environmental controls are not a priority.

Should Proposition 23 not be passed, AB 32 will go forward full speed ahead. The middle class & poor majority of this state will carry most of AB 32’s financial burden, as costs for electricity; natural gas, fuel, and groceries will increase by as much as $4000.00 a year for every household in the State. Higher energy costs are the only way green energy technologies can compete at profit.

With unemployment currently over 12% in the state, California will be poised to lead the Nation in unemployment for many years to come. We will have to look forward to getting back to 12%. The so called green energy jobs promise will never make up for the jobs lost, and would likely be developed regardless of AB 32. We cannot afford the consequences of this poorly formulated initiative, passed by politicians pandering to the deep pockets of Silicon Valley & Alternative energy investors.

I would like to urge the voters of California to make informed decisions, and not to formulate opinions based on television commercials. Please take the time to read about AB 32 and Proposition 23 in your sample ballots. Above all PLEASE VOTE on November 2nd.

Officials from both the Yes side and No side on Prop 23 have repudiated the Reuters poll which showed Prop 23 losing by a large margin. Reuters used language describing the initiative that had already been outlawed by a California judge, so the question it asked was whether voters would approve something that, in fact, was not what they would see when they got their ballot. The Reuters poll was also done before any TV ads went up. And it was a very small sample, half that of the LA Times.
However,, the LA Times poll is already a couple of weeks old, as you can see by the date of the post. It was accurate at the time it was taken.
Don't be so quick to condemn a newspaper that performs a public service by doing its own polling, as well as vetting other polls for those who don't carefully check.

This poll is not accurate. I just saw another poll that says 45% of people are against prop 23. Nice job LA Times for inaccurate reporting.

Where can I work against prop. 23? My neighborhood is Santa Monica or West Los Angeles.

reply to Russ
you say you have worked for 3 componies in the last 2 years so what your saying is either your lazy and cant keep a job or the green jobs just dont have enough work to keep you employed. If I were you I would not make any big purchases like say a $50,000 electric car beter stick to the old 71 Pinto you live in

The green companies are not profitable, they are subsidized by the government, which gets its taxes from the profits of the physics following profitable companies. The global warming law will stifle the existence and so the profits of the companies that are tax paying. The green companies are generally not tax paying, after their government subsidy.
Global warming is a hoax to prohibit the making of profit by technology. Bad law based on the global warming hoax is trying to wreck technology, and wreck the capital for it.

The green companies are subsidized by the profits of the companies that operate technology that must take in consideration the laws of physics. Global warming is a hoax. The California Global Warming Law should be repealed, its implementation will stifle the profitability of technology. The remaining -green- technology will still need to be subsidized by companies that will then be non-profitable.

Wow, look at all the Valero/Koch/Tesoro stooges posting follow ups to this article. Lots of hot air but no real facts to back up their claims of job loss. Or shuttering of refineries.
This is an age old tactic by big business. Threaten to leave the state if they dont get their way.
Regardless of my stand on global warming. I resent out of state entities meddling in our states politics. Prop 23 is badly written. If the trigger was 7% or 8% unemployment, that might be reasonable. 5.5% unemployment hasnt happened here in decades. Its a kill-bill.

As far as green jobs, they do exist. In the last 2 years I have worked for 3 solar tech companies as a contractor. You know who is leading us in solar, the countries that are not manipulated by oil interests such as Germany.

Please oppose prop 23! As the remaining jobs die in California, the productive citizens will move to other states like mine, boosting our economy.

The only people left in California will be left wing psychos, who will starve to death due to their own stupidity.

I mean, Darwin's laws says that progressive idiots will die off.

In a just-published study for the Pacific Research Institute, Dr. Benjamin Zycher estimates that adoption of Proposition 23 will increase aggregate employment in the State by a bit less than 150,000 in 2011, about half a million in 2012, and 1.3 million in 2020, relative to the case in which AB 32 goes into effect. http://bit.ly/OpenMrkt_Prop23

Fully Study: http://bit.ly/PRIStudy_Prop23

A vote against AB23 is a vote to raise gasoline prices, eliminate jobs, and increase energy dependence by causing an increase in the importation of gasoline. Note that I say gasoline, not oil, becasue if you kill off US refineries, the gasoline will be coming from India and China.

The people who are fighting against PROP 23 ("Snake Oil" Steve Maviglio & Steyer) are only doing so because they are financially benefitting from it. They do not care about Arnolds "legacy" or global warming, they only care about what will put more money in their pockets.

Maviglio is being paid to go out and LIE to the public in order to trick people into thinking that ab32 is somehow magically going to to create millions of jobs and save the world, but in reality, ab32 & CARB are going to kill off 1,000,000+ jobs that we already have. He always says that the green industry is the fastest growing job segement, but the REAL NUMBER of jobs being created still pales in comparison to the rest of the industries in the state. Snake Oil steve does not care if millions of working class californians lose their jobs, since he makes his riches from Defending the ethical lapses of scumbag politicians in Sacramento, running fraudulent campaigns, and by drawing up fake press releases in order to make his opinions look like facts. He make his living on fueling arguments & pushing agendas that screw the taxpayers.

Steyer is funding the "Steyer-Maviglio House of Lies" with millions of dollars. He is putting on a show to trick people into thinking he is doing it because he cares about the state and the environment, but in REALITY, the only reason he cares is that he INVESTED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars into "green" companies because they are heavily subsidized by government money & loans, and he was also under the impression that CARB would use ab32 to kill of his competitors in order to create a more favorable market for his pet projects. He does not care about anything other than his investments and his bottom line. He is willing to kill off as many jobs as he possibly can, because that will reduce the cost of labor & he will be able to staff his companies for half the price.

These people are bad news. The only people that are really pushing for job killing regulations like ab32 are scumbags like Maviglio & Steyer, politicians who dont have to worry about finding a real job(or have been bought off), and the unassuming public who have drank the toxic cocktail that Maviglio & Steyer have been serving up.

Before you vote, think about this.

- If it were your job, company, & way of providing for your family that is going to be killed by CARB & ab32 (along with 1,000,000 others), would you still support ab32?

- Especially with CARB themselves admitting that their actions & ab32 WILL DO NOTHING TO CURB GLOBAL WARMING?

- With CARB Chairwoman, Mary Nichols, making millions of dollars owning stocks in OIL & COAL COMPANIES, as well as her husband being the lawer WHO DEFENDED EXXON for their EXXON-VALDESE OIL SPILL

- With the amounts of unethical behavior & scandals within CARB(i.e. Heing Tran. look up CARB, these is plenty of scandal reading for you)

- Considering that even is ab32 is left intact, that California is the worst state to do business in (I.e. highest taxes, highest/most fees, a regulatory/political disaster, high labor costs, and one of the highest costs of doing business) Which means that many companies are not going to choose to set up shop in California, especially when every other State & Country is trying to get their business & offering a better place to do business, less taxes, cheaper labor, etc.

- Considering that the 1,000,000+ jobs lost at the hands of CARB & ab32 WILL NEVER BE REPLACED BY GREEN JOBS

- Considering that CARB answers to no one under ab32 & they ARE NOT ELECTED, so no matter how horrible of a job they do, we the taxpayers have no way to stop them.

With all of the lies & uncertanty surrounding the economy & the ability of CARB to fairly & ethically govern our state, would you be willing to lose your job so politicians can posture to their demographic?

Do you want your spouce to come home with a pink slip so Steyer can make a few HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS?

If you Vote no on PROP 23, you are really voting to ELIMINATE THE SOURCE OF INCOME FOR 1,000,000 CALIFORNIA FAMILIES. You can listen to the lies from Maviglio & Steyer, but just remember, they will not lose their jobs because of ab32. They will not lose their homes at the hands of CARB & AB32. Their kids wont go hungry because of CARB's unethical ruling. A vote against PROP 23 is a vote for poverty.

VOTE YES ON PROP 23 & SAVE 1,000,000 CA FAMILIES FROM POVERTY

Prop 23 is bad for everyone. California is the leader in clean tech policies that other states model themselves after. Instead of moving the country forward toward sustainable technology and farther away from fossil fuels, we would be rolling back the clock and using the same old excuses of “it’s not the right time” or “we just don’t have the money.” With news that China has surpassed the U.S. to now be the top producer of renewable technologies, this is not the time for our country to step backward.

Until we all wake up to reality will become dust from this planet. Too bad for us helped us develop.

I am watching this fight closely from Massachusetts. It would be a shame if California had to roll the clock back on all the achievements they have made in the last 4 years.

NO ON 23!
Boycott Valero!

There are many people who do not read and do not think, but they vote. This is the reason we have so many wackos in all kinds of issues. These persons are just followers, and therefore they follow those who talk, write the most. In this issue Al Gore and the Gorists. Of course there is a warming in the planet (we are in an interglacial era), and the current warming cycle in this interglacial era, started in 1850. But guess what. There were some other warming cycles warmer than ours, when there were not anthropogenic CO2 emissions. So Gore blessed M. Mann and his infamous "hockey stick" graph, that erased any other warming periods before us. But if you read and think you will find out that M. Mann as many other "scientists" were not doing a good work and he was exposed in his flawed data. Explain those warming periods before industrial CO2 emissions and then come back and talk to me. I have many more scientific evidences that the warming is not caused by CO2, this will be "unphysical" as was put by good scientists.

I don't get it when people say that we need more research to establish that "global warming" is true.

Where do you think all the pollution is going to? It sure as heck not benefiting our planet. Let's just look at Los Angeles, the pollution there a couple of decades ago was uninhabitable and thanks to these progressive policies there's been some change for the better.

CALIFORNIA is not for SALE!

Defeat Prop 23!
Defeat Meg!
Defeat Carly!

here's some more truths:

Big Oil is the cutting edge of chasing viable "new energy" sources. They have armies of the best scientists, chemists, engineers trying as hard as they can to achieve the breakthrough. Whoever discovers the next big thing will own it through the patent process for the next 20 years, they'll change the world, and they'll earn obscene profits in the process. It's a little green myth that Big Oil tries to defeat the green tech, the truth is they're trying harder than anyone to figure out the magic bubbles process first, bring it to market as fast as possible, and watch the money pile up as their stock prices shoot thru the roof.

Your dream of "new energy" jobs assumes that all this exists right now and is just being kept in a little box somewhere. The problem is that it doesn't exist. There's nothing holding back all this "new energy" development except for a lack of interest in the market because "new energy" is really a bunch of ideas that have been around for 40 years that just don't provide much of a return on investment. Wind? Try putting up new electric generating windmills, environmentalists sue because it endangers eagles and flying squirrels. Big solar, same enviros go after you because of the desert tortoise. Geothermal? Once again, enviros run to the courts because the coyote gets upset. Heck, you can't even build a decent and useable public transport system in LA / OC because of the courts and permitting process. California ahead of the curve on things like this? C'mon, can't even get to the starting line anymore because of the red tape. All the good ideas just quickly degenerate into a bunch of talking points for the people that like to see themselves on TV.

This idea that green jobs are out there just waiting to come to the rescue is an unfortunate mythology but it sure sounds good. It plays upon a human trait of believing anything and questioning nothing as long as it fits a certain template. Question everything, believe nothing.

I must say, I am embarrassed. So many of you still think that climate change is a hoax? Virtually every "study" challenging the existence of man-made climate change has been funded by big oil, big coal. Objective, rational, peer-reviewed science is clear on the subject. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are changing our climate. California has a lot to lose. Vote no on 23.

In response to Windfall:

"There is no global warming." It is often claimed that there is no proof that global warming is man-made. True. Where is your proof?

"Water vapor accounts for over 99.9 percent of the greenhouse effect... and if it didn't, Earth would be too cold for human habitation. " Where did this value come from?
*
"Question for AGW dupes: What percentage of the atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide?" 387 ppmv, and increasing rapidly (geological scale):http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/carbon-dioxide-rate-is-at-highest-level-for-650000-years-434809.html
*
"Answer: Less than one half of one tenth of one percent. (About three one-hundredths of one percent to be more precise... and scientists estimate that only about three to 10 percent of that is man-made.)" Actually, since CO2 concentrations were at 280 ppm before industrialization, and are currently about 387 ppm, that is an increase of 38%. Is it just coincidental that we happen to be burning coal and oil at incredible rates also?
*
"Even if you are convinced against all evidence that the world’s climate is changing do to anthropogenic carbon emissions, you are completely ignorant of the both the science and the math if you think that reducing carbon emissions in California – or the entire U.S. for that matter – is going to have any impact on the climate whatsoever. " California has the largest economy in the US, and it also leads the country for environmental laws. California cannot do it all by itself, but once AB32 works in CA, other states can also follow CA's lead.
*
"Even Dr. Richard Muller, professor of physics at that right-wing think tank known as The University of California at Berkeley, admits that an 80 percent reduction in U.S. emissions would “have only a tiny benefit.” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588673072577680.html)
Actually, with the US being the worlds #2 polluter, an 80% reduction would be significant. " When the US leads, other countries will also follow as well. If you noticed during any climate meeting, other countries failed to act because the US is not taking its role as a leader in the world any longer, mainly due to Old Energy lobbyists. The percentages in the citation above are not absolute percentages, but "carbon-intensity" percentages, which are a falsely high value depending on GDP. The earth does not respond to how much GDP is produced by the amount of GDP- it responds to greenhouse gas emissions.
*
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588673072577680.html
*
"Before you vote to destroy what is left of the California economy to implement a “solution” that won’t work to a “problem” that doesn’t exist, get the facts on AGW… " How is AB32 going to destroy the economy? AB32 requires utilities to use 33% New Energy-- and with that-- jobs (researchers, construction, manufacturers, shippers, installers, maintenance, operators, ....) With jobs, people can buy things and stimulate the economy further.
*
http://www.icecap.us
From this reference:
for Harrison “Jack” Schmitt see:
http://newmexicoindependent.com/19191/the-pride-adn-joy-of-silver-city-harrison-schmitt-gains-notoriety-as-a-big-oil-fav oil-funded: "Annapolis Center has received more than $860,000 in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998" and he has spoken at the oil-funded "Heartland Institute".

For David R. Legates
See http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/corp_funding.html or use Gogole for the organizations for which he writes:
National Center for Policy Analysis, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Independent Institute, Heartland Institute,
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, George C. Marshall Institute, and Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station
there is a lot of oil in there.

Icecap.us itself is backed by the "Frontiers of Freeedom" (Oil): http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom

When it comes to living in a world, are you going to look at scientists or an oil company for observations and facts? Choosing the latter is like asking a pharmaceutical company if you need their product.

Voting yes on 23 will do nothing for jobs, as it is sponsored by oil companies whose only interest is to keep the oil flowing with the least cost. What is wrong with "New Energy" jobs, requiring all fields: researchers, manufacturers, shippers, installers, maintenance, .... that sounds more like jobs, whereas this bill only stalls the creation of these jobs until unemployment reaches 5.5% for one year, which is a long, long way off. Catch-22 anyone?
Some claim that the earth is not getting warmer, and if it is, we are not causing this change. Well, what happens when we discover that they were wrong? Will it be too late to start making the necessary changes? Indeed it will be. Why not simply be cautious with out one earth and work towards New Energy sources. The USA is / was a technologically advanced country at some level. Or perhaps we will let the Old Energy companies continue to win in the political realm so that they can keep their profits going for a few more years- they will fail when the climate is ruined, and take everyone else with them.
Ask your legislators to kill Proposition 23 and support the current AB 32. Better to be cautious with our planet than to make a global mistake.

Unemployment needs to remain high in order to get California back to a natural equilibrium.

California was once the "land of opportunity" when it was a agricultural, manufacturing, high tech powerhouse. Those days are over folks. Ag jobs wages have fallen tremendously to the point where most ag jobs are poverty level type jobs. Most manufacturing from simple to complex has been sucked away to China and Asia as has engineering and high tech development. There is no law that California could pass or repeal that would undo these events, these are permanent changes to to the California infrastructure. It's important to see things as they are, not how you think they should be. A friend of mine is a financial advisor, a good one too, and he often has professional young couples meet with him and want to know how they can raise a couple of kids, save for college, save for retirement and have a nice full family life in the process. The answer - move out of California! The main problem in California today is too many people, not enough resources including affordable housing, good stable jobs. The point of life (for most, not all, no disrespect intended) is to raise a family, not struggle to buy a house, keep a job and make payments on a Toyota Camry. If an extended period of high unemployment is what it takes to regain economic and social equlibrium in California, then so be it.

A million of us are stronger than two of them. Stop the dirty energy proposition. Vote no on 23. Send your contribution to

http://www.stopdirtyenergyprop.com/index.php

ANYBODY who believes in anthropogenic global warming/climate change are living a lie. Ask yourselves a simple question... Where's the proof? Ocean levels are the same as when al gore began his doom & gloom screech. His house is still high and dry. AB32 is the nail in the coffin for California and the CARB has the hammer. As for me, I am trying to increase my Carbon footprint. We are Carbon and C02 is also good. In fact, try living without it. Don't breath the liberal pixie dust folks.

I'm against the prop, but not for the reasons you might suspect. One of California's main issue is that too many people live here, crammed into mostly just two or three urban areas. The California "dream" lures a lot of people here, where they make (or maybe don't) just enough to survive, rack up a lot of credit retard debt, don't save for retirement and end up screwing themselves over. So if a lot of jobs leave and it takes a lot of people with them, what's so bad about that? There's no such thing as an obligation to live here. The laws of survival will take care of the rest of the problems, the painfully poor will move out with the not so poor and the middle class. In the end, Cali will be a nicer place to live again albeit you would have to be doing and earning a good bit above the average to live well or accept the more bohemian youth lifestyle which is really do-able here, kind of like a really large Manhattan. There are plenty of states where people earning the median or less can actually do quite well, it's a mistake for them to try to huff it out here because in the end you end up with nothing. It's really painful to see the freeway rush packed with stressed out people ultimately going nowhere just because they chose here to try and make a home. The sweaty Cali middle mass is undergoing an extinction event no matter how you look at it and that's not necessarily all bad.

Why do people ask you to read articles written by special interest groups who slander and spin the truth to support their agenda? Read your ballot. Every voter gets one. Yes on Prop. 23 only suspends this law until unemployment drops to 5.5% or lower. California cannot afford to lose 1 million jobs with a No vote. A no vote on 23 will not only increase your electric, natural gas, but will increase a gallon of gasoline to an estimated $9dollars a gallon. With massive taxes imposed. Vote yes on Prop 23.

Wow, all the enviro freaks are out posting in force today. Step away from the Kool Aid, man made global warming or whatever you folks are calling it this week is BS.

It's very simple. Either you support saving jobs for the millions that are unemployed and to put off the environmental rules until people can pay their bills, or you supports more jobs lost and more people out of work. That's basically it. Now decide.

There is no global warming.
*
Water vapor accounts for over 99.9 percent of the greenhouse effect... and if it didn't, Earth would be too cold for human habitation.
*
Question for AGW dupes: What percentage of the atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide?
*
Answer: Less than one half of one tenth of one percent. (About three one-hundredths of one percent to be more precise... and scientists estimate that only about three to 10 percent of that is man-made.)
*
Even if you are convinced against all evidence that the world’s climate is changing do to anthropogenic carbon emissions, you are completely ignorant of the both the science and the math if you think that reducing carbon emissions in California – or the entire U.S. for that matter – is going to have any impact on the climate whatsoever.
*
Even Dr. Richard Muller, professor of physics at that right-wing think tank known as The University of California at Berkeley, admits that an 80 percent reduction in U.S. emissions would “have only a tiny benefit.”
*
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514404574588673072577680.html
*
Before you vote to destroy what is left of the California economy to implement a “solution” that won’t work to a “problem” that doesn’t exist, get the facts on AGW…
*
http://www.icecap.us

There is no Global warming...climate change.....climate disruption... call it whatever propaganda you want ..

Wow i'm getting taxed for breathing....WOW!

Prop. 23 is polluters' revenge against California and Californians. Vote NO on 23. Send the dirty Texas oil companies and their greedy backers a strong message.

God Bless Billionaires: Vote for Prop 23.

-Global warming deniers operate in a belief-based world, not my fact-based world.
-This prop is being funded by wealthy and powerful out of state interests who have to place in California politics. This is disgusting.
-Without an environment, we have no economy.

Thank you, 202_cyclist! I followed your link and found my next article! This is important enough, on a scale of 1 to 10, to rank just under Armageddon -- which would be a 10 (the one and only). I'm repeating the link here (hoping for the best). Thanks again.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer


Calif. Prop. 23: Delayed greenification

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.

Prop 23 is not about global warming, it's about restraining the ill-intended narcissistic AB-32 that was conceived at the height of the global-warming evangelist bubble. The passage of AB-32 has endowed CARB with totalitarian authority in designing our societal habitats, and they will destroy our economy with their Marxist societal structuring, deciding how our way of life should evolve through their iron-fist regulations in control the amount of substance that we human exhale - CO2. Only God should have that kind of power. But AB-32 gave the California Air Resource Board that kind of absolute authority.

Yes! on Prop 23.

California has led the nation in killing jobs and driving business out of state and the country. You better brush up on your cleaning skills as that will be the only new jobs as the only people able to afford to live here will be the rich. You will all be planation servants ! Way to go environmentalists! Please drive your Prius off a cliff on Highway 1

Californians can't afford not to vote no on Prop 23. Even if you doubt the science of climate change, air pollution and harmful emissions cause lead to billions of dollars in avoidable healthcare costs. One study this past year found that people living within 100 meters of freeways in LA are twice as likely to get hardening of the arteries than the general population.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/14/local/la-me-freeway-pollution14-2010feb14

Air pollution caused by emissions leads to billions of dollars in extra healthcare costs to treat asthma and heart disease each year. I guarantee you that Koch Industries, Valero, and the other oil-barons funding this don't have to pay one cent for these healthcare costs. It is CA residents that will be responsible for these costs through higher Medicare payments and insurance premiums.

Let's just exhaust plumes of thick smog from all our vehicles! Let's stop the evolution and progression of cheaper forms of renewable green energy! Let's just be cavemen bro! Screw it! We should all breathe smoggy soup suspensions of oxygen and hydrocarbons and give all our money to BIG OIL. Let's continue this senseless destruction of the environment and earth with more oil spills. Let's rely on dirty oil and coal forever. WHO NEEDS SOLAR PANELS AND WIND TURBINES WHEN YOU GOT TOXIC CHEMICALS?! Who needs new and cheaper fuel technologies? Right? Let's just let big oil control the prices at the pump forever. $5 a gallon! Let's just increase employers health insurance costs when they all develop cancers of the throat lungs etc from inhaling toxic soup-like smoggy air! DO IT ALL FOR THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR! The dollar comes first. Not the air that Californian Citizens breathe!

If you even have to think about this one, you're either deaf and blind or simply ignorant enough for the likes of slimbaughl to simply spit out makebelieve b.s. that you in turn will believe. If you've lived in California for any decent period of time, you should know better than to even consider voting yes on any proposition that will delay what should have begun in the early nineties.

This guy... I just want to make it clear to the jerk at the bottom, stevor, with his ridiculous assumption that global warming or "climate change" as he points out is a farce because Sacramento has actually gone down in temperature, that GLOBAL WARMING is indeed very real & the evidence is everywhere. I know for a putz like you living the good life here in beautiful & sunny California that climate change is the least of your problems but for the people desperately trying to survive in Pakistan, it's a matter of life & death. Shame on you. Yeah, its clear that it is of no concern to you that food crops sustaining millions upon millions of people have been washed away in massive floods or in other parts of the world seen their crops & lands dry up because you can always count on knowing where your next meal is coming from. You probably have know idea what it means to starve. It's time to be serious, we can't wait any longer.
Plus its good for business here in California. Manufacturing, agriculture, technology... this is an exciting new frontier & has the potential to be revolutionary. Why wouldn't we want to be at the forefront?

Yes, @jsa26, Prop 23 "will affect jobs and the cost of living in California."
It will increase the number and pay of jobs and lower the Cost of Living in CA!!

Have you already been "dumbed down" by Valero's and Koch Bros' propaganda??

You should have read @Eric of Reseda's post ahead of yours before you made yourself look foolish!

@Margaret, yes, Rush Lunchbox, Glenn Beck, Sen Imhopeless of OK, Sen DeMinted of SC, Valero and Big Oil and Dirty Coal in general, and the Koch Bros did launch a "giant propaganda blitz" trying to convince the gullible and un-informed that there is no man-made contribution to Global Climate Change. Apparently, it worked with you.

Do you also believe that the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old?? And that Rush Lunchbox is a Patriot? And that Sister Sarah really doesn't worship with a Kenyan witch-hunter??

Or that we can "Drill, Baby, drill" our way out of our addiction?

T. Boone Pickens, noted Oil & Gas Billionaire and chief funder of the 'Swiftboat' attacks on Sen John Kerry, would disagree with you. "just goes to show how uninformed people are".

Read up, Margaret.

If you think out-of-state oil conglomerates have the best interests of California in mind, vote yes on Prop 23.

If you have common sense, vote no.

If plastic minded voters would only read the scientific analysis produced last March, the DOE report of increasing destabilization of methane hydrates one to two thousand feet deep along the Russian, Alaskan/Canadian and Nordic/Siberian coasts of the Arctic Ocean, they would only vote no on the initiative initiated by Texas Oil.

Microorganisms in the ocean water will blossom wildly in feeding upon the methane liberated by warming waters. These organisms will severely deplete the oxygen content of the water.

Ask your next door Republican if they've ever swam in a swimming pool full of algae.

Folks, for once in your life, how about NOT voting with your wallet, but with your lungs, liver, and kidneys. Save the planet and yourselves. No on 23.

From news in Europe, not reported in the US: "Wind's Latest Problem:it...makes power too cheap." Oil, gas and coal must control the media in this country and somehow were able to brainwash 40% of the electorate in California. The rest of the world knows that YOUR ELECTRIC BILL GOES DOWN WHEN YOU USE RENEWABLES!! Somehow, nobody knows this in the US. Why not? According to this link, German citizens save 5 billion euros (about 7 billion dollars) annually due to the lower price of renewable energy. That is for real! http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/6418

Apparently the Texas oil companies want to produce more jobs -- in Texas. Otherwise why would they be spending such vast amounts of money arguing for Proposition 23?
Follow the money...and vote "no" on this self-serving Texas-oil-company-enriching scheme.

Vote NO on Prop 23. It's a bailout for Texas oil companies at the expense of California and our environment. Reject Meg Whitman's cynical effort to buy this election with her wad of cash - she has zero experience and is no friend of the environment or the middle class. Jerry Brown is the right choice for California and the drive toward renewable energy and a better environment.

California is really hanging in the balance according to the latest polls with all of these issues nearly 50/50. If we turn down prop 23, pass 25 along with the "pot bill" and vote in Jerry Brown, we had all better grab our best track shoes and run for the nearest state line! You think the state is in trouble now, well you ain't seen nothing that would compare to this scenario as the monkeys would literally be running the entire zoo! Time to give the Dumbocrats and their idiotic ideas the big boot in November at both state and national levels!

Global warming is nonsense but the attempt to buy an election by the right-wing whacko silver spoon Koch bothers is not so I will vote NO!

 
1 2 | »

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