A Critical Juncture for Alternative Energy

A recent New York Times article highlights the critical battle we're facing as citizens who want to see a more sustainable future. A ballot measure in November will essentially kill off a bill passed four years ago in the State Assembly that calls for greenhouse gas reductions to 1990 levels, going into effect in 2012. Not only does this impending change bode well for our overall emissions and the environment, it has also been key in promoting the development of alternative energies.

Now however, according to the article: "A ballot initiative to suspend a milestone California law curbing greenhouse gas emissions is drawing a wave of contributions from out-of-state oil companies, raising concerns among conservationists as it emerges as a test of public support for potentially costly environmental measures during tough economic times."

The Koch family (including David Koch and Charles Koch - written about in a piece in the New Yorker recently) have been large contributors to the ballot initiative. As seen in the New Yorker article, essentially anything outside of the arts that the Koch brothers support is something all citizens who care about a better, more equal, sustainable future should oppose. Unlike many things in the progressive world, this is pretty cut and dried; if the Kochs support it, oppose it with your life. It can't be good for you.

Back in the New York Times article, northern California assemblyman Dan Logue from the 3rd District (in Humboldt) is quoted as saying: “What we’re saying is, this is not the time for political correctness. This is a time for putting America back to work; let the experiments happen later.”

Last I checked, reducing greenhouse gases to attempt to limit atmospheric concentration was not "political correctness" but a rather critical matter of trying to preserve a semblance of normalcy in our climatic patterns - patterns that essentially drive everything from rainfall to growing seasons to fresh water availability. Ask Mr. Logue about these things though, and I'm sure he'll give you either a blank look or blather on about how "nothing has been proven."

While I'm in a skewering mood - I now feel good about having boycotted Valero for the past 5 years or so. I never trusted them, and now that I know they have contributed $4 MILLION dollars to stopping any limits from being placed on emissions, I have proof that Valero is a crappy corporate citizen. (Thankfully, Chevron, one of two oil companies I am willing to buy gas from - Shell being the other - has NOT supported this ballot initiative.)

Moreover, I always find the economic damage argument (used by Mr. Logue above) and also cited in the Times article: "Some oil industry leaders said it would force them to invest millions of dollars to comply, and asserted that it would force companies to cut jobs and raise the price of gas at the pumps." The article goes on to say that the anti-emissions limit forces have raised over $8 million dollars, while the pro-limit forces seem to have a similar amount. So, let's do some arithmetic. Let's say $20 million (at least) gets spent on THIS campaign to determine whether or not we should implement regulations on carbon emissions that, admittedly, WILL cost money to comply with.

(Now, that money should be seen as an INVESTMENT, not a cost, since when done right, it can lead to better research, greater competitiveness, and potentially new markets opening up - which can also lead to more jobs. But I digress.)

$20 million dollars on ONE campaign, not including the countless millions spent already trying to sway public opinion about the issue. Now, maybe I'm just naive, but wouldn't all that money be better spent just improving our industries instead of trying to get people to believe that it costs too much? Isn't it a bit ridiculous to spend millions of dollars to tell the public that you don't have millions of dollars to spend? When are we all going to wake up and see that these companies (and the Kochs of the world) are playing on our everyday fears so THEY can make more and more money? It isn't a coincidence that in the past 30 years, the income of the top 1% of the nation has grown 176% while those at the bottom? Well, at least they're getting more than inflation: 6%.

Action:
1. Californians, vote NO on Prop 23 this Nov.
2. Boycott Valero and send letters to their Board telling them to stop supporting bad legislation and start investing in a cleaner energy future
3. Boycott all Koch Industries subsidiaries, including Georgia Pacific Paper
4. Spread the word!