News

PROPOSITION NEWS: S.F.'s Newsom opposes Prop. 23 that would curb greenhouse emissions law

Supporters 'disingenuous about meaning well for California,' mayor says.

An initiative on the November statewide ballot that is funded by two Texas-based oil companies and would roll back California's air pollution regulations drew condemnation Wednesday from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Proposition 23, the California Jobs Initiative, would suspend AB 32 -- the state's greenhouse gas emissions reduction law signed in 2006 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- until unemployment in California drops to 5.5 percent or less for a full year.

Newsom, who campaigned against the proposition in San Francisco in June as well, praised both AB 32 and his city's record on the environment and support of "green" jobs.

"To me it's not a partisan issue. It's about the fate and future of our state," Newsom said.

Schwarzenegger has also condemned the effort to suspend AB 32.

The No on 23 campaign Wednesday alleged that the two companies funding the measure, Valero and Tesoro, "have accumulated hundreds of violations of state and local health and air pollution laws in the Bay Area" and other parts of the state.

The Yes on 23 campaign shot back that the two companies were being demonized, saying they provide thousands of jobs for Californians.

Newsom accused the companies of being disingenuous about meaning well for California.

"I think they care about their bottom line," Newsom said.

Green technology, he added, "is the ticket to broad-based economic prosperity in this state."

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Earl rRchards
a resident of another community
on Oct 7, 2010 at 8:20 am

The California Jobs Initiative (CJI) is an oil corporation farce and fraud. There is no connection, whatsoever, between greenhouse gas emission reduction and the loss of jobs. This notion is an insult to the intelligence of the people of California. In fact, there is job growth in the clean, renewable energy industry. Chevron employs 65,000 worldwide and CJI is not going to change this. The only jobs created by the oil industry are clean-up jobs after oil spills and deep water, blow-outs and pump-handler jobs. CJI will make fantastic profits for the oil industry, increase air pollution, especially in communities around their refineries and there will not be lower gas prices. Koch industries, Valero and Tesoro are super Enrons. Since when did the oil companies start to show any concern for the unemployed and their families and for small businesses?


Like this comment
Posted by SteveP
a resident of Parkside
on Oct 7, 2010 at 8:35 am

SteveP is a registered user.

Earl, so called 'green job' are the farce. Those jobs are limited to a few rich do-gooders that are trying to relieve their guilt for having so much money. While the inadequate 'green technology' may be the newest fad for those who despise the big oil companies, the truth is we need oil now and will for a long time into the future. When the greenies completely stop driving or flying in their private jets, I'll beleive they are serious about eliminating oil. Until then, it's glaringly obvious that these hypocrits are another self serving bunch of hucksters selling a different brand of snake oil.


Like this comment
Posted by RD
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 7, 2010 at 10:05 pm

Faulty science behind state's landmark diesel law:
Web Link

California Air Resources Board, the geniuses who also brought us MTBE:
Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Maria
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 7, 2010 at 10:31 pm

I love how people just say in regards to oil, "Oh, it can't be changed, so it shouldn't be done," and leave it at that. Oil is a finite resource; we're tapping it faster than it's being made. Where are the folks who are squawking about how the government is bankrupting our grandchildren? Shouldn't they be up in arms about how we're depleting our existing resources (not to mention causing catastrophic environmental damage!) by refusing to wean ourselves off of oil? It CAN be done in small steps; look at how dramatically gas usage decreased when prices skyrocketed a few years ago.


Like this comment
Posted by Me Too
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 7, 2010 at 10:53 pm

Maria hits the nail on the head. The issue is not global warming (climate change or whatever the name of the day is) is the fact that we do not have national security when we are purchasing a majority of our oikl from foreign countries. We need more nuclear, solar, bio, and yes, other green, resources. Call it what you want, but if a country can not sustain itself it is at the will of others, so we should do whatever means necessary to bring back our worldly independence (which went away long ago)


Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 7, 2010 at 11:09 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

The US still has quite a bit of oil. We're just not drilling it. We're saving it for when the Middle East runs out. Har har. In other news, I hear the Lab has started their fusion ignition project. Now if only we could figure out that ZPM technology...


Like this comment
Posted by Maria
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 8, 2010 at 7:16 pm

Actually, we get about a 3rd of our oil from Canada/ Mexico...


Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 8, 2010 at 9:00 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

This idea of linking the emissions law with unemployment statistics is my main concern with this proposition. When was the last time California had 5.5% unemployment? It was during the last three bubbles! A better measurement would be to reach a historical average unemployment rate. There's really no incentive provided in the legislation for companies to create jobs here in California. Worse, there's disincentive for companies to create jobs here because if they do, then the emissions law would kick in. So Californians will end up paying once again for bad initiative-created law both financially and with our health.


Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 8, 2010 at 9:02 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

The theory is that the emissions law would hinder economic recovery. So a much better way of suspending the emissions law would be to have it suspended for a period of 2 or 3 years instead of providing disincentive to companies to lower the unemployment rate in California.


Like this comment
Posted by MePartyPatriot
a resident of Downtown
on Oct 10, 2010 at 10:51 pm

MePartyPatriot is a registered user.

If you ever fly from SoCalif to NoCalif or fly to British Columbia and look west you see a yellow/organge haze. That's called smog.

But, it's not ours. Ours blows to the east to the Sierra. The haze you see to the west is coming from China. Don't believe me? Read your history. During WWII, the Japanese Imperial Army let high altitude balloons float that landed in our Pacific NW. They knew the east's winds blow towards America. Today, it's China's emissions blowing in the same direction.

So, for you that bury your heads in the sand, you are absolutely right. California emissions don't pollute California if you consider Sierra Nevada part of Nevada (it's a joke).


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Couples: “True love is a decision between the head and the heart . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,133 views

Some election thoughts
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 608 views

 

Nominations due by Sept. 17

Pleasanton Weekly and DanvilleSanRamon.com are once again putting out a call for nominations and sponsorships for the annual Tri-Valley Heroes awards - our salute to the community members dedicated to bettering the Tri-Valley and the lives of its residents.

Nomination form