News

Tonight: Prop 23 forum

 

Local environmental activists are holding a meeting at 7 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 13, about Proposition 23, a statewide initiative that would freeze reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in California until unemployment drops to 2007 levels — essentially reversing the state's global warming statute. Prop. 23 will appear on the ballot for the Nov. 2 elections.

Former Menlo Park mayor Gail Slocum, who works for PG&E as an attorney on energy policy, said in a press release the initiative undermines the state's ability to attract investors in clean technology.

The meeting will start at 7 p.m. in the community room at the Menlo Park Library on Alma Street.

Go to stopdirtyenergyprop.com for the No on 23 website.

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Earl Richards
a resident of another community
on Oct 13, 2010 at 4:33 pm

The California Jobs Initiative (CJI) is an oil corporatoin farce and fraud. There is no connection, whatsoever, between greenhouse gas emission reduction nd 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 Enons. 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 Wayne
a resident of another community
on Oct 14, 2010 at 12:56 pm

The enforcement of AB 32 will cause an economic disaster for California that will keep other states from passing such legislation, and probably do more harm for the cause than it will help the environment.

Points to ponder on AB 32 / Prop 23:

° AB 32 is not a pollution law, it is a global warming law, but it won’t have any effect on global warming.

° Prop 23, in spite of fear-mongering by opponents, does not repeal any clean-air laws. It does not increase local pollution.

° CARB over-estimated diesel emmisions by 340%. What else have they over-estimated?

° Key CARB personnel caught lying about credentials and then failing to reveal this after it is discovered internally before AB 32 passed, until after AB 32 passed. What else are they lying about and with-holding?

° Sacramento State University reports estimated cost of $3734 per year per family due strictly to AB 32.

° CARB has admitted that California alone cannot have an impact on reducing global warming and CO2 emissions.

° US EPA acknowledges that US action alone will not impact the world CO2 levels;

° US EPA (11 July 2010) said that bills in Congress will not reduce the total use of gas and oil of 20 million gallons per day for decades.

° LAO (CA Legislative Analyst Office) stated: CA economy at large will be adversely affected by implementation of climate-related policies that are not in place elsewhere. (Letter to Dan Logue, 13 May 2010)

° Even CARB’s own economic experts have recognized the fact that jobs will be lost because of AB 32. In fact, they recommend establishing a “Worker Transition Program” to provide assistance to people who lose their jobs because of AB 32 regulations.

° AB 32 does nothing for local pollution, nor does Proposition 23 do anything to increase local pollution.

When the loudest objections to any candidacy or initiative are focused on vilifying its financial backers, this often indicates that its opponents’ arguments on its merits are weak.

Vote yes on Prop 23 and suspend AB32.


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

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 993 views

Couples: Sex and Connection (Chicken or Egg?)
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 823 views

Zucchini Takeover
By Laura Stec | 1 comment | 747 views