« Back to Home Page

The Eclectic and Prominent Opposition To California Ballot Measure Prop 23

Gina-Marie Cheeseman
| Thursday September 23rd, 2010 | 5 Comments

A measure on California’s November ballot, Proposition 23, would suspend AB 32, also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 set targets for reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. The list of people, companies and organizations against Proposition 23, reads like a who’s who of California. First, let’s start with people, namely Tom Steyer, founder of hedge fund Farallon Capital Management LLC. Steyer is also the co-chair of No on 23, Californians to Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition. He donated $5 million of his own money to the campaign.

“Proposition 23 really boils down to one thing,” said Steyer. “Do we want California to continue moving forward as a leader in a clean energy economy, including continuing to create new jobs, new economic development and new investment, or do we want to allow two Texas-based oil companies, like Valero and Tesoro to take our state backward and see the clean energy jobs, business and investment in our state go off shore to place like China?”

Next, on the list is the co-chair of No on 23, George Shultz, Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State. In an op-ed piece for the Sacramento Bee, Shultz wrote that Proposition 23 “seeks to derail our future through a process of indefinite postponement of our state’s clean energy and clean air standards.”

Napa winery owner announces opposition to Proposition 23

Farming is one of California’s major industries, so it’s fitting that a Napa Valley winery owner is the next name on the list of those opposed to Proposition 23. Jon-Mark Chappellet, co-owner and managing director of Chappellet Vineyards & Winery of Pritchard Hill in Napa announced his opposition to Proposition 23 this week in an op-ed piece for the Napa Valley Register. “Proposition 23 takes us backward because it would derail California’s landmark clean air and energy policies and slow the growth of the clean energy economy,” Chappellet proclaimed.

Chappellet went on to state that because of climate change California’s grape farmers need to invest in water conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. “Proposition 23 is a direct threat to all of these opportunities.”

California utilities against suspending AB 32

Two leading California utilities are against Proposition 23. Southern California utility, Sempra Energy announced its opposition to Proposition 23 last week. Donald E. Felsinger, chairman and CEO of Sempra Energy said in a statement, “We support California’s pioneering effort to transition to a low-carbon economy and AB32 provides the critical path for getting there. Applied properly, AB32 will promote clean technology, create new ‘green’ jobs and reduce air pollution.”

Sempra Energy is the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern California Gas Co., Sempra Generation, Sempra Pipelines & Storage and Sempra LNG.

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), one of the largest utilities in the nation, issued a press release in early July which announced its opposition to Proposition 23. Peter Darbee, Chairman and CEO of PG&E said, “Studies show that unchecked climate change could cost California’s economy alone tens of billions of dollars a year in losses to agriculture, tourism and other sectors.”

Health care organizations say Proposition 23 will increase health risks

Two large California health care organizations, Kaiser Permanente and Catholic Healthcare West are opposed to Proposition 23. Why would health care organizations care about AB 32 being suspended? Susan Vickers, Vice President of Community Health for Catholic Healthcare West, pointed out that California has the worst air basins in the country which causes “tens of thousands to suffer from asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory illnesses.”

Vickers added, “The state literally cannot afford the health impacts of Prop 23.”

“California’s clean energy law has health benefits, as well as environmental benefits” said Kathy Gerwig, Vice President Workplace Safety and Environmental Stewardship Officer for Kaiser Permanente. “The ballot measure would turn back the clock on laws that protect our public health.”


▼▼▼      5 Comments     ▼▼▼

Newsletter Signup
  • http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/ Rajan Alexander

    10 tell tale signs that the global warming is a dying hoax

    Global warming hysteria, whose gravy train INGOs and environmental organizations jumped into for the last decade or so, has run its course. Climate alarmism is dying a slow and painful death. Here are some telltale signs that it is in its deathbed, grasping for its last breath:

    1. Re-branding exercises

    We live in this age of advertisement where if something isn’t working, the first remedy is often to change the offending name. Repeated attempts to re-brand global warming are one of these. Global warming first metamorphosed as “climate change”. This worked for some years but such was the gross misuse and abuse of the term that the public soon developed allergic to this term too and thus the desperate search for an alternative term in the last few months. Some alternatives recently floated are “climate weirdness” and “climate disruption “, the last coined by President Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren.

    Read more: http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/2010/09/for-climate-justice-activists-living-in.html

  • http://www.gina-mariecheeseman.com Gina-Marie Cheeseman

    I suggest you research who funds climate change denial. I have a hint for you: it’s the companies that extract Texas tea.

  • http://www.galacterria.com albia miller

    Global warming is true and alive as witnessed by extreme wet winters in Arkansas and Oklahoma and extreme heat waves in California. What does ths cost?… more air conditioning from power facilities and more flood insurance pay offs. I pray that the nay sayers do not have to experience the reprecussions of natural diasters from GLOBAL WARMING. Contine fine work in energy independence from personal to local pwer stations. Edison workers may not be reading meters due to satelites, however, they can be making solar, wind, mini Telsla stations and disassembling nuclear, coal, hydro facilities. Pray that the Ceator invents some new technology and we make proper legislative decisions.

  • Wayne

    The key thing to keep in mind is that, according to CARB, the organization who wrote and will enforce AB32, AB 32 will do NOTHING to help global warming, will cost jobs and have a negative effect on the economy. This comes from the very people who drew it up!

    AB 32 does nothing for local pollution.

    Prop 23 leaves us with the toughest pollution laws in the country, among the toughest in the world. It will NOT increase local pollution

    If Proposition 23 is rejected, here is what will happen according to expert sources:

    •A 60 percent increase in your electricity bill according to the Southern California Public Power Authority.

    •An 8 percent increase in your natural gas bill according to CARB’s economic analysis.

    •$50,000 more for the price of a new home according to an analysis by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

    •$3.7 billion a year more for gasoline and diesel according to Sierra Research.

    •A $1,000-$3,000 additional cost for a new car according to CARB and automaker studies.

    On top of all that, a study conducted for the California Small Business Roundtable found that AB 32 regulations would cost small business alone nearly $200 billion, and would result in more than 1 million lost jobs.

    The more I learn about AB 32, the more I fear it. It just gets worse. Please vote yes on Prop23.

    “”2 Guys on the Bay Area Transportation Board told the CARB people, “If you try to do what you are going to do(AB 32) we’ll have gas at $9.07 a gallon and we have freeway tolls at up to $4,500 a year to drive during rush hour.”

    “Part of the plan is to stop suburban development, get people to stop driving, make driving too expensive for people to live out there, force them to live in high-rises, condos, in the city.”

    For months, John and Ken have made Prop 23 their top priority, calling it a necessary step to stop a law they say will kill jobs and cost Californians a fortune in higher gas and energy prices. With an estimated one million listeners per week, these two guys usually manage to rally enough votes to get their way.

    The video has John and Ken explaining why they think this bill is the most important measure on the ballot.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/39853750

  • CharliePeters

    Charlie Peters and Mary Nichols at California Air Resources Board (CARB) meeting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl-Nrep74qg