Vote NO on Proposition 23

SUSPENDS CLEAN ENERGY AND AIR POLLUTION STANDARDS
Suspends Implementation of Air Pollution Control Law (AB 32) Requiring Major Sources of Emissions to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming, Until Unemployment Drops to
5.5 Percent or Less for Full Year
Initiative Statute

League Positions | Discussion | Supporters | Opponents | Resources | Sample Letter to Editor | Sample E-mails | Points to Make | Flyers

Note: For a full explanation of the measure and background information on it, including the fiscal effect, refer to the analysis included in the Secretary of State’s Official Voter Information Guide for Proposition 23 and the LWVCEF Pros & Cons and In Depth publications.

LEAGUE POSITIONS

The LWVC Energy position calls for giving consideration to the potential of state regulatory and planning agencies for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. It also states that the state should use economic/market and other incentives to foster renewable energy, conservation, demand-side management, and greenhouse gas reductions. Under the LWVC Air Quality position, the League supports measures to establish air quality standards that will protect the public health and welfare, and the development of effective enforcement and implementation procedures at each level of government to attain these standards. We believe that the state agency in California responsible for air pollution control should be strengthened and sufficiently funded to set air quality standards that may be stricter than national standards and that the cost of converting industry from polluting to non-polluting practices should be borne primarily by industry with the help of certain incentives.

DISCUSSION

The LWVC supported the adoption of AB 32 and we support the progress to date of its implementation. For more information about AB 32 implementation, go here. We believe, along with the League of Women Voters of the United States, that global climate change is a real and critical issue facing our planet that needs to be seriously addressed. To date, the progress made by the Air Resources Board has been thoughtful and reasonable, by taking clear steps to reduce the effect of carbon emissions to the extent that our state can both make a difference and lead the way.

Many local Leagues have made issues related to mitigating global change their top priority, and there are many active climate change committees and action efforts involving League members.

This measure is an effort to kill the AB 32 program. AB 32 is not the cause of the economic downturn, and recovery will be slow with or without this law. On the other hand, we need to plan for the future of a green economy. Although the Legislative Analyst’s Office has concluded that the Air Resources Board may have overestimated the positive job effects of AB 32, our reading of their analysis does not conclude that AB 32 is responsible for all of the job losses in the current economy.

SUPPORTERS

Signing the ballot argument in favor:

  • Kevin Nida, President, California State Firefighters’ Association
  • John Kabateck, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent
     Business/California
  • Jon Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Signing the rebuttal to opponents’ argument:

  • Brad Mitzelfelt, Governing Board Member, Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District
  • J. Andrew Caldwell, Executive Director, The Coalition of Labor, Agriculture & Business
  • James W. Kellogg, International Representative, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry

Supporters: Yes on Prop 23, California Jobs Initiative; 866.247.0911 • www.yeson23.com

OPPONENTS

Signing the ballot argument against:

  • Jane Warner, President, American Lung Association in California
  • Linda Rosenstock, M.D., Dean, UCLA School of Public Health
  • David Pacheco, California State President, AARP

Signing the rebuttal to supporters’ argument:

  • Lou Paulson, President, California Professional Firefighters
  • Jane Warner, President, American Lung Association in California
  • Dr. Charles D. Kolstad, Chairman, Department of Economics, University of California-Santa Barbara

Opponents: No on Prop 23, Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition; 888.445.7880 • www.stopdirtyenergyprop.com

RESOURCES

Helen Hutchison, LWVC VP for Advocacy and Program, hhutchison@lwvc.org

Linda Craig, LWVC Climate Change Program Director, craighughes@earthlink.net

Trudy Schafer, LWVC Senior Director for Program
1107 Ninth Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814-3608
916.442.7215
tschafer@lwvc.org

No on Prop 23: Stop Dirty Energy: www.stopdirtyenergyprop.com/

The No on 23 campaign has launched a “10,000 Clean Energy Leaders” recruitment campaign to involve activists who will be the foundation of a volunteer field team. These volunteers will commit to Get Out the Vote (GOTV) activities such as social networking, phone banking, precinct walking, and viral communications aimed at targeted voters. League members are encouraged to sign up at the No on Prop 23 Web site.

SAMPLE LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Note: Please adapt this letter to your own community and check your local paper’s word limit for a published letter.

Editor:

Proposition 23 is a measure that would virtually kill the landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).  It would suspend the implementation of AB 32 until the state unemployment rate is 5.5 percent or lower for a full year. That has happened only three times in the last four decades!

This dangerous proposition would effectively repeal clean energy and air pollution standards indefinitely and jeopardize dozens of regulations that promote energy efficiency and pollution reduction.

Proponents, primarily out-of state oil companies, say this measure is needed to preserve jobs, but in fact it will threaten hundreds of thousands of clean-energy jobs.

We must promote California’s role as an innovator and investor in a clean-tech economy.

Vote NO on Proposition 23.

Sincerely,

(your name)

SAMPLE E-MAILS - Send to your Friends

E-mail 1:
I oppose Proposition 23, the Dirty Energy Proposition, funded by out-of-state oil companies, because it would virtually kill the landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, AB 32.

Proposition 23 would suspend the implementation of AB 32 until the state unemployment rate is 5.5 percent or lower for four consecutive calendar quarters. That has happened only three times in the last four decades!

This dangerous proposition would get rid of clean energy standards that will cut air pollution and protect the public health. Proponents say this measure is needed to preserve jobs, but in fact it will jeopardize hundreds of thousands of clean-energy jobs. We must promote California’s role as an innovator and investor in a clean-tech economy.

Vote NO on Proposition 23!

Read more about the League’s recommendation.


E-mail 2:
Note: This email asks people to sign up directly with the Prop 23 campaign.

Don't be fooled by Proposition 23. Two Texas oil companies are hijacking California's ballot to repeal our state's leading clean energy and clean air laws.

We need to act now to send a strong message to polluters on November 2 and avoid this disaster. Proposition 23 will result in more air pollution, roll back efforts to move California to cleaner wind and solar energy, and will kill hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs.

Join the fight against dirty energy today!

The League of Women Voters of California opposes Proposition 23 because it moves all of us backwards. But the Texas oil companies have the money to drown us out if we don't all stand together. That's why we are asking you to sign up directly with the No on 23 campaign today.

Start today by joining the fight against Proposition 23, the Dirty Energy Proposition!

California deserves less pollution — not more! You can help protect California's clean energy standards. Join the campaign and we'll all speak with one voice. Please take a few seconds to stand up with the League of Women Voters of California against Prop. 23.

Please join us now!

When you sign up you'll also have the chance to become a No on 23 Clean Energy Leader. As a Clean Energy Leader, you get:

  • the very first up-to-date information about No on 23;
  • a personalized No on 23 webpage;
  • access to a full online tool suite that will help you take part in volunteer activities like
    • sharing ideas and information with your friends,
    • calling your neighbors right from home to help spread the word,
    • hosting and attending special events for No on 23.

We can beat back the Texas oil companies, but we need your help. Please sign up today to help lead the fight for No on Prop. 23.

Thank you,

Visit www.StopDirtyEnergyProp.com for more information or to sign up.

POINTS TO MAKE

  • Prop 23 would virtually kill AB 32, California’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and eliminate clean energy standards that will cut air pollution and protect the public health.
  • Prop 23 would suspend the implementation of AB 32 until the state unemployment rate is 5.5 percent or lower for four consecutive calendar quarters. That has happened only three times in the last four decades!
  • Proponents say this measure is needed to preserve jobs, but in fact it will jeopardize hundreds of thousands of clean-energy jobs.
  • Prop 23 is funded by two Texas oil companies (Valero and Tesoro) whose California operations comprise two of the top ten polluters in the state.
  • We need to promote California’s role as an innovator and investor in a clean-tech economy.
  • Supporters’ claim that “The failure of Prop 23 will cost your family almost $4,000 a year in increased costs and taxes” is misleading.
    RESPONSE:
    The source of this figure is “Costs of AB 32 on California Small Businesses—Summary Report of Findings,” June 2009, by S. Varshney and D. Tootelian, California State University, Sacramento, for the California Small Business Roundtable.
    The report explains the assumptions and methodology by which the total of $3,857 was reached, with details related to housing, transportation, gas/electric, and food.
    This report was reviewed by the Legislative Analyst’s Office in a letter to Assembly Member Roger Niello later in 2009. That review and various other studies have discredited this number—BECAUSE, as indicated in the report, the authors did not include any benefits to consumers from AB 32, just cost.

FLYERS

Several flyers are available: