SEMPRA (SDG&E) & LA MESA COUNCIL ENDORSE “NO ON DIRTY ENERGY” EFFORT TO DEFEAT PROP 23

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this


“It’s the moral and ethical thing to do to protect the health and well-being of our residents,” Mayor Art Madrid

By Miriam Raftery


September 15, 2010 (La Mesa) – La Mesa's City Council voted yesterday to oppose Proposition 23. Sempra Energy, parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric Company, also announced its opposition to Prop 23.  

 

The ballot initiative would repeal California’s landmark AB 32, the law which protects clean air, requires greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and provides incentives for renewable, clean energy jobs in California.

 

 “It’s the moral and ethical thing to do to protect the health and well-being of our residents,” Mayor Art Madrid said at yesterday’s hearing, where dozens of residents turned out to oppose Prop 23.

 

Madrid, who chairs the National League of Cities’ energy and environmental resources subcommittee and has led efforts to assure that La Mesa will be compliant with AB 32, including setting up a Sustainability commission and working with SANDAG. “It clearly does affect us in La Mesa,” he said.
 

Sempra joins many hundreds of major corporations lining up against Prop 23, including giants such as Microsoft, Google, PG&E, and even E-Bay, the company formerly run by gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman (though Whitman has declined to take a stand on Prop 23).

 

By contrast, the Yes on 23 campaign is funded 97% by big oil companies, including 86% of funds from out of state oil companies that operate wells or refineries here. La Mesa Mayor Art Madrid characterized supporters of Prop 23 as “the biggest polluters we have here in California.”
 

"We support California's pioneering effort to transition to a low-carbon economy and AB32 provides the critical path for getting there," said Donald E. Felsinger, chairman and chief executive officer of Sempra Energy, in a press statement issued yesterday. "Applied properly, AB32 will promote clean technology, create new 'green' jobs and reduce air pollution. At Sempra Energy, we are implementing California's aggressive public policy agenda by investing in clean-burning natural gas and renewable energy resources."
 

Councilmembers Mark Arapostathis and David Allan joined Madrid in a 3-0 vote to oppose Prop 23. Councilmembers Ernest Ewin and Ruth Sterling abstained; Sterling cited a conflict of interest due to her holdings in both coal and oil companies as well as a clean energy business. Ewin asked numerous questions regarding how fast green jobs would be created and suggested that advocates should “walk the talk” by owning hybrid vehicles and asking their pension funds to divest from companies that pollute.
 

No speaker testified against Prop 23. Councilwoman Sterling read a letter from one area resident who opposed Council taking a position on any ballot measures. She also read a statement from Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina, who supports Prop 23 and has called AB 32 a “job killer” and indicated that solutions should be addressed globally , not state by state.
 

Opponents say that’s a false argument and that the real reason behind Prop 23 is to keep big oil companies from having to clean up polluting refineries. No on 23 spokespersons say that Prop 23 is creating jobs—not killing them. They have the numbers to back up their arguments.
 

San Diego now has over 750 clean tech companies, said James Waring, chairman of Clean Tech San Diego, a nonprofit that assists clean tech/green companies to relocate or expand in our region. “That hundreds more than a few years ago. “San Diego is fast becoming the world leader in algae based fuels,” he said, noting investment by Microsoft and Exxon Mobile, “and we are the world leader in solar.” Passage of AB 23 would be disastrous for those industries, he and other speakers noted.
 

Ken Sobel, representing the California Solar Energy Industries Association, had this to say. “The whole world is looking…Deutsch Bank alone is holding back $5 billion until they see if Prop 23 is defeating.” Sobel, who previously served on a bond oversight committee for the Grossmont Union-High School District, said passage of Prop 23 would harm California’s economy. He called proponents’ arguments “a smokescreen that has nothing to do with jobs” and added that “climate change is a very real issue.”

 

Miriam Raftery spoke on behalf of Mark Hanson, ECM's publisher who is the founder of United Green, a nonprofit that helps bring green jobs to our region.  United Green's parent nonprofit, Heartland Coalition, is also pubilsher of ECM.  Hanson has met with over 200 CEOs of green-tech and green manufacturing companies and has commitments from 32 to relocated in California, including some in San Diego and East County.  However they have indicated they would reconsider coming to California if Prop 23 should pass, Raftery stated.
 

Other opponents of Prop 23 testified that it would increase cases of children’s asthma, heart and lung disease, raising California’s healthcare costs if AB 32 is repealed. Prop 23 is opposed by the American Lung Association, the League of Women Voters, and the American Association of Retired Persons. It is also opposed by the California Professional Firefighters (failing to address global warming could also lead to more devastasting wildfires.)
 

Patrick Dean, a candidate for La Mesa City Council, noted that oil reserves are running out. “Production has peaked,” he concluded. “Americans, Californians and La Mesans all want renewable energy--and we can do it if we work together.”
 

Comments

Prop. 23 cont.

Thank you, Miriam.

By way of clarification:

1) I don't listen to right-wing talk radio (so why would you suggest otherwise?)

2) Walter Russell Mead is not a right-wing talk radio host. Nor are the estimated 700 skeptical scientists who now disagree with the U.N.'s climate conclusions (13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary) Included among these are Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology. She now expresses relief (upon her retirement last year) at being finally able to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, has called man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." And Norwegian Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, unabashedly calls is a "new religion." Also included are a group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer. They are demanding that the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. And these are only a few. BTW, both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter. So much for open minds, eh?

3) Nor is The London Times, which has covered this story extensively, a part of right-wing punditry.

4) I do not deny global warming. Nor do many other "skeptics." What we are questioning is, A) the degree to which humans are responsible for this phenomena; and, B) the cost and efficacy of the radically remedial measures proposed by men like Al Gore.

5)I am not a scientist and can therefore claim no expertise in this field. I am, however, aware of the degree to which all of us-scientists included, and politicians especially!--are vulnerable to personal and/or irrational biases.

Prop. 23

This is big (though in La Mesa, hardly surprising) disappointment. With both fraudulent claims having been unmasked at the highest levels in the "global warming community," and much legitimate scientific evidence now weighing against Gore and co's draconian proposals, one can only conclude that this is about little more than political posturing.

Writing in the American Interest, Walter Russell Mead put the matter concisely: "The [global warming] movement died from two causes: bad science and bad politics. After years in which global warming activists had lectured everyone about the overwhelming nature of the scientific evidence, it turned out that the most prestigious agencies in the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data, and making inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, no scientific basis at all."

"Bad science and bad politics"--talk about a poisonous pair! Shame on La Mesa's pseudo-scientific political poseurs for their opportunistic embrace of both.

The "scientists" who claim global warming is a fraud

were bought and paid for by the oil companies.  True, there was one scientist out of hundreds who was partially discredited in Europe. You can find someone like that in every field.  But when 99% of the world's respected climate scientists all agree that global warming is a dire crisis that imperils our planet, and the only naysayers are researchers on the payroll of big oil companies, it's pretty obvious what the truth really is.

To believe global warming is a fraud, you would also have to believe that all the top scientists right here at UCSD are liars.  Check out the computer modeling they've done showing how much of San Diego would be underwater if ocean levels rise not the astronomical two feet that some experts have predicted, but even a few inches. 

Look at the videos of rapid ice melting at the poles and with glaciers worldwide at unprecedented levels.  Let your own eyes be the judge. Climate change is real, Craig.

My degree is in environmental studies some years ago.  This is an area where I have done considerable research in years past and attended various events with top experts speaking.

Instead of listening to right-wing talk radio shows that ignore facts, try reading some scientific reports and going to symposiums where scientists who have not been paid to come up with a specific outcome have to say.  It would be an eye opener.

 

All of that said, even one is still unsure about global warming, there are plenty of other reasons to oppose Prop 23.  It will kill green jobs, and it will result in increased air pollution which causes asthma, cancer, and lung diseases.  As mother of a son who suffered with asthma, i can't understand why people would want to harm children's health by making our air worse!

 

 

 

 

Prop 23

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. Both Valero and Tesoro are super Enrons. Since when did the oil companies start to show any concern for he unemployed and their families?