Environmental news from California and beyond

« Previous | Greenspace Home | Next »

Support for Proposition 23 drops sharply in new poll

La-me-prop-poll.blog2 Opposition to Proposition 23, a November ballot initiative to suspend California's sweeping global warming law, has surged in recent weeks, according to a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, or PPIC. Among likely voters, 48% say they will vote against the measure and 37% say they will vote for it.

A previous PPIC poll and a USC/Los Angeles Times survey in late September had shown likely voters evenly split. Proposition 23 would suspend the state's 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act until unemployment in the state declines to 5.5% for at least a year -- a level rarely achieved for that duration.

The global warming law, also known as AB 32, aims to slash the state's carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that scientists say are trapping heat in the atmosphere and disrupting Earth's climate.

The precipitous drop in support for the initiative comes as Silicon Valley tycoons have spent millions of dollars to fight it, saying the measure would halt investment in solar and wind energy, low-carbon fuels, electric cars and other green-tech businesses that are growing rapidly in California. Major national environmental groups, who see California's law as a model for national climate legislation, have also donated millions of dollars in opposition.

In attitudes toward Proposition 23, the PPIC poll found that education mattered more than income. Among college graduates, 55% opposed the initiative, compared with 37% of those with a high school degree or less. But there was no significant difference among those earning more than $80,000 a year or less than $40,000 a year.

Voters identifying themselves as white were more likely to say they will vote no than Latinos. Among whites, 51% opposed it and 34% said they would vote yes.  Among Latinos, the margin was 42% against and 44% in favor -- a statistical dead heat.

In addition to mainstream conservation groups, Latino activists in environmental justice groups in Los Angeles and other cities are campaigning against the measure, saying it would lead to more smog and toxic air pollution, as well as greenhouse gases -- an assertion that is supported by the American Lung Assn. and other health groups but disputed by initiative backers.

In the last three weeks, a statewide “Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition” television blitz by opponents has painted the initiative as a “deceptive scheme” bankrolled by “two Texas oil companies.” The companies, Valero Energy Corp. and Tesoro Corp., who operate California refineries and are the main funders of the initiative, would “pollute our air, kill clean energy jobs and keep us addicted to costly oil,” the TV spots  charged.

That message may have resonated.  “The voters are very cynical about initiatives,” said Mark Baldassare, president and chief executive of the policy institute.  “They assume that there is some interest group that is behind it unless they hear otherwise.”

The No on 23 campaign has raised more than $28 million, as opposed to just $9 million for supporters of the measure. As its funding has dried up, the Yes campaign has curtailed its TV air time. So its message attacking the state’s global warming law as an "energy tax” that would kill jobs may have failed to reach many voters.

“Californians are seeing Prop. 23 for what it is: a deceptive measure financed by Texas oil companies to kill California's clean air and energy standards," said Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for No on 23. "They've figured out that Valero is the new Enron."

But Anita Mangels, spokeswoman for Yes on 23, said, "The poll is testimony to what can happen when billionaire hedge fund managers and venture capitalists decide it's more in their self-interest to invest in defeating an initiative that would pull the plug on subsidies and incentives for green-tech than to invest in the green-tech sector itself."

Proposition 23 has become a flashpoint in the gubernatorial and senatorial races, attracting attention just as opponents ramped up their campaign. Democratic candidates Jerry Brown and Sen. Barbara Boxer strongly oppose Proposition 23. GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman says she would suspend the global warming law for a year and try to “fix” it.  Republican senatorial candidate Carly Fiorina supports Proposition 23.

The PPIC surveyed 1,067 likely voters Oct. 10-17. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. The earlier survey was taken Sept. 19-26.

-- Margot Roosevelt


Obama: No on Prop. 23 and 'corporate polluters'

TV campaign on California climate law revs up

Global warming issue spans two ballot initiatives

Graphic by Paul Duginski /Los Angeles Times


Comments () | Archives (15)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Green technology has enabled money to be invested in California to help out Californians. The payback for Green tech is measured in years beyond what is considered good, yet the payback is consistent and decent, after which it is pure profit. The higher efficiencies which California has worked for has contributed to California's economy and saved it a lot of money.

Good for California. Good for the educated Californians who know that technology needs support to reach it's full potential. Without invest now, longer term planning for the inevitable will not happen and California will miss out. Energy tech is going to be one of the biggest things.

Tim McCord... You are so full of it. Prop 23 is designed so that AB32 would be permanently disabled!! That's how the bill is written. It says that AB32 would go back into effect when CA has FOUR quarters of unemployment under 5.5%.

How long has it been since CA had four quarters unemployment under 5.5%. OVER 50 YEARS!!!

AB32 is not a burden on anyone. It's helping to create new clean energy jobs here in CA. AB32 is helping CA lead the nation on clean energy.

For more on AB 32 and the attempt to undo it through Prop 23 and Prop 26, see:

There are some good charts there showing renewable transportation trends in California, and also a list of the major funders of the Props - out of state big oil, etc.

Jay Kimball
8020 Vision

RE: Energy Revolution, thats a nice intellectual response. I believe in a clean environment, and that some are morally passionate about it. However I have an issue when the morally passionate views of people blindly against prop 23, put the financial burden on the majority of poor & middle class people in the state.

This issue is not as simple as the greed of two Texas oil Companies against California, as the No on 23 commercials want you to believe. Whats not mentioned is the Greed of heavy investors in green energy, determined to invest vast sums of money into Sacremento to legislate faster returns on their investments, regardless of the consequences to most Californians. Its the same Wall Street greed that got the country into this mess to begin with.

Postponing aspects of AB32 until the economy is healthier, will allow all classes of society the ability to recouperate. Forcing those aspects of AB32: will cost too many jobs that we already have, under a promise that sometime in the unknown future, we might some jobs back through the clean energy sector.

This simply doesn't make good sense for the majority of Californis right Now.

Hi you Oil-pusher$ need another fix of your black Drug? Yet another Iraq?

It's time to start the new Millennium without oil! The Solar Millennium ...

These are the jobs of the future, no more importing of oil in the long run, clean air and last but not least: no expensive bills for our kids in polluted environments, arms and blood for yet another oil war.

Collecting the sun is cheaper than buying oil from terrorists

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.

Yes, Peak Oil is coming; and with it very dire changes, as many predict.
From an economic or security standpoint, this seems to give all the more reason to push for incentives NOW to lessen our dependence on oil, in advance of the inevitable rise in the price of oil in the future.
Otherwise we are in for a very rude oil shock down the line.

Paul Taylor
Maybe you think environmentalists want to save insects and fish; but endangered species are often an indication of an entire ecosystem habitat breaking down. Protecting species saves habitat, for many species.
We don't want to live in a world that makes lots of stuff and commodifies it all. We want to preserve as best we can some few remaining islands of natural environment.
It's easy to say 2 oil companies have selfish motivations for funding Prop 23: they don't want Californians or Americans to find alternatives to oil.
Why do you try to equate George Soros' motivations to that? The outcome environmentalists seek is a cleaner environment, which is a benefit to all of us, not just a select few.

If you cannot breathe the air then what good is all the rest.

George Soros' Tides Foundation is a slush fund for progressive (liberal) special interests -- handing out over $100 million each year. "No on Prop. 23" funders are spending $29.9 million -- three times that of the "yes on Prop. 23" campaign. 1/3 of the anti-23 organizations have received over $2 million from Soros' Tides Foundation, and include the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy and other eco-groups.
Soros affiliates dumped over $25 million for the Obama election year. Lately, Soros' has given to left wing media -- $1 million to Media Matters, $1.8 million to NPR and deals with The Huffington Post for so-called "independent media" ventures. Soros bought Obama's election. And, now Soros wants to buy more influence in America's liberal media.

Prop 23 seems to be dead. Now it is on to Prop 26, which is a stealth Prop 23 - still aimed at killing AB32, and still largely funded by the oil industry.

If you vote NO on Prop 23, make sure to vote NO on prop 26.

Though oil will be with us for a long time, cleaner renewable energy is where California's future growth will come from. Cleantech jobs are growing at about 10 times the statewide average.

Check out this excellent video of a Cal State senior challenging Kock (big oil funder of anti-climate change candidates and issues) to a debate on Prop 23. An excellent example of calling out the puppet masters.!

Jay Kimball
8020 Vision

The very fact the world is at a tipping point of energy consumption should make you wonder why we continue to chase the global warming boogie man. Is the planet warming? Yes. Is it man made? That is completely debatable. I say if it is man made, Peak Oil will naturally put an end to our ability for us to consume more fossil fuels and add more to our carbon foot print. Why place a huge financial burden on the public when the whole system is bound to correct itself naturally in the not too distant future?

I recommend checking out these links:,1518,715138,00.html

The first 2 posters Paul Taylor and D Bonson must be on the Koch payroll. Good for Californians if they reject wealthy and ideological outsiders interferring in their state. Maybe a lesson was learned from Prop 8 outside influences.

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.

Some of the wealthiest people are against Prop 23. These same people also have huge personal "carbon footprints" and are doing jack squat to practice what they preach.

The rich want you to sacrifice while they live the good life at your expense.


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...


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 »