Monday, October 11, 2010

CARB's Great Big Fat Green Screw Up

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other 10 percent a bad name." - Henry Kissinger

Now I know if you support Proposition 23 (as I do) you're supposedly someone who doesn't care about polar bears or the little children who are the future of the world. And rather than busy hummingbirds and dewy eyed does with their spotted fawns gracefully wandering down from the mountains to drink from your backyard swimming pool, you support the oil companies that destroyed the Gulf of Mexico. That's just how politics gets done in California. Everything is boiled down to its lowest common denominator, and then all the LCDs line up to consume it like so many salty snacks. There really is a distressingly large amount of uninformed people around these days.

Now believe it or not I do worry about things like air quality, the state of our wilderness areas, and the purity of our water supply. Who wouldn't want to live in the best of all possible worlds, or be able to offer these kinds of benefits to their families? That is certainly the life we want for Sierra Madre. Which is why we work so hard to defend it.

The assumption that just because you oppose some entirely fallacious legislation out of Sacramento you must automatically be in favor of turning the planet into something resembling an apple crisp is absurd. Sacramento can't pass a budget, spend within its means, stop destroying our public schools and universities, bases the fiscally ruinous salaries and pensions it gives to public employee unions on their ability to deliver votes, can't keep its mitts out of city piggy banks, or place taxpayer priorities over the needs of the lobbyists who bribe them on a nearly daily basis. So given that horrendous track record for ethics and accomplishment, we are now supposed to trust them to save the world? Please pardon my skepticism.

That people can no longer differentiate between politically enabled corporate propaganda and what their actual interests are is a big problem. An authentic democracy requires a reasonably aware citizenry for its survival. Take that away and you end up with something resembling our current state government. Or, for that matter, Sierra Madre's City Council.

Proposition 23 is designed to put a halt to the kinds of widespread economic damage and despoilment of our cities that would be caused by AB 32 and, to a similar extent, SB 375. The notion that through draconian central government planning greenhouse gases will somehow be curbed, and thereby saving us from global warming, might sound fabulous to the nebbishy Sacramento planners given God-like power over the process. But for the rest of us the effects could hardly be worse.

As an example, AB 32's problem stepchild, SB 375, calls for land use reforms that would, if we allow them to get away with it, turn quaint little villages like Sierra Madre into dense mixed-use transportation villages that will chain us to a lifestyle far inferior to what we enjoy now. The claims that vast new development located next to bus stops will somehow save the world from global warming is an absurdity that should be a red flag to most people. Let's face it, the only people who will benefit are the actual builders of this high-density development, and the real estate corporations that will earn millions selling it. Which, considering the dicey legislative origins of these vast efforts to socially engineer our daily lives, was probably the point when Sacramento cooked up this nasty porridge in the first place.

And there was a major revelation last week that exposed just how potentially baseless the claims of those defending AB 32 (the so-called "Global Warming Solutions Act") really are. The amount of greenhouse gas that is to be eliminated from the air was supposed to be calculated by the California Air Resources Board (aka CARB). Sacramento having given them an ultimate decision making authority over these matters. CARB's edicts would then be handed over to Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) like SCAG, who'd grind that information down into its more prosaic forms. Like how many condos will need to be built in the San Gabriel Valley to please the state legislature and the concerned lobbyists who pleasure them, along with abusive schemes designed to dragoon people into riding Metro buses and the 210 Trolley rather than driving their cars.

The problem is that CARB's calculations are often wrong, and despite their claims of scientific infallibility (which is the basis of their assumed authority to tell the rest of us how we need to live our lives), they often don't really know what they are doing. Here is how the San Francisco Chronicle reported the news of a serious error made on the question of diesel emissions:

California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state's clean-air standards, and scientists have spent the past several months revising data and planning a significant weakening of the landmark regulation, The Chronicle has found.

The pollution estimate in question was too high - by about 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards. The estimate was a key part in the creation of a regulation adopted by the Air Resources Board in 2007, a rule that forces businesses to cut diesel emissions by replacing or making costly upgrades to heavy-duty, diesel-fueled off-road vehicles used in construction and other industries.

CARB's errors, backed by the full force of the central state government in Sacramento, can have serious effects. In an article entitled California Environmental Regulations Based on Myths, the Heritage Foundation laid out the costs to the concerned industries this way:

The cost of such regulations, which air regulators peg at $5.5 billion for the trucking industry, will increase the cost of transporting goods for businesses. Richard Lee of Tim A. Manley Trucking said, "It makes no sense to saddle the trucking industry with regulations that absolutely assures the collapse of thousands of taxpaying businesses." For those businesses that don't collapse they'll simply pass those costs on to the consumer. California is right to pull back on stringent, costly regulations, and that, on top of the massive economic costs, is why the Air Resources Board should reconsider its Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which would seek to reduce carbon dioxide levels to 1990 levels by 2020.

Contrary to the claims that AB 32 will boost California's economy from green investment and green job creation, the state cap-and-trade program would do the complete opposite by increasing energy prices, thereby causing a considerable reduction in economic growth, household income, and employment. Whether it's federal or state, the logic is the same: Higher taxes will destroy many more jobs than they create.

The notion that the California Air Resources Board, along with SCAG and the rest these tax payer supported bureaucracies, should have such immense control over how we live our lives is frightening. CARB's now suspect calculations will be the justification of SCAG's mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers in a few short years, something that could result in Sacramento coerced demands that we build massive mixed-use development projects downtown. Which is why I support Proposition 23. Anything that will help to derail the destruction of Sierra Madre's small town character has my backing. The claim that we would need to allow for the building of hundreds of highly stacked condos here in Sierra Madre in order to save the world from global warming makes about as much sense as running around downtown howling that the planet is in imminent danger of an invasion from Mars.

Jennifer Kerns on the always intriguing Fox & Hounds site quickly cuts to the chase:

The Great Big Green Lie - The San Francisco Chronicle has uncovered a scathing error at the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The newspaper has just published that the California Air Resources Board has "grossly miscalculated pollution levels" that were being used to further crack down on the state's air standards ... The California Air Resources Board didn't miss the mark slightly. They miscalculated California's air pollution levels by a stunning 340% percent. That's 340%.

The Chronicle reports that the stark errors in the Air Resources Board's research "raise questions about the performance of the agency as it is in the midst of implementing the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 - Or AB 32 as it is commonly called." ... This error comes after the Air Resources Board vastly overinflated the number of diesel-related deaths in 2009, suggesting that 18,000 Californians had died prematurely when the number was actually a fraction of that. If we can't trust the state's most powerful environmental board to calculate basic statistics correctly, what else can we trust them to do?

And to think that these are the people Joe Mosca and John Buchanan want to cede control of our city to so they can dictate the future of Sierra Madre.

So why does Mayor Mosca keep telling us we have to obey CARB, SCAG and the onerous Sacramento development demands of SB 375?

This is probably a good a time as any to correct something Joe has been laying on us for a while. Mosca, about as devoted a servant of Sacramento's draconian central planning schemes as you can find anywhere, has been informing us for quite some time now that we really have no choice in the matter, and that if we don't knuckle under they'll send in the National Guard or something.

Which is why Joe has been so hot to get his hands on the Land Use portion of our currently under construction General Plan. Something that, after the highly compensated consultants he wants to hire so badly get done, would render us helpless to fight back against the kinds of high density generic development Mosca's patrons have encouraged him to enable. Which he is working very hard to do while at the same time so unctuously assuring us that he is not.

But is Joe's claim actually true? Have we really been backed into a corner from which there is no escape? Not according to Daily Journal writers and topic experts Diane C. DeFelice and Charles H. Pomeroy.

In order to measure performance, SB 375 requires certain actions to take place during the planning period under an implementation timetable and to require rezoning under certain circumstances. The metropolitan planning organization is tasked with preparing a Sustainable Communities Strategy and, if they cannot meet the set targets, an Alternative Planning Strategy can be adopted. After assigning the targets, CARB has the final say in determining the accuracy of the metropolitan planning organization's (Ed: for us, SCAG) methodology and if the target can be achieved. At a minimum, it must obtain CARB's acceptance, as the acting state agency, than an alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for that region. While metropolitan planning organizations are at the heart of regional planning efforts, local land use agencies will continue to regulate locally and their land use policies do not need to conform to plans developed under SB 375. This nod to local autonomy comes at a cost because nowhere in SB 375's text is there a mention of penalties or enforcement should a metropolitan planning organization fail to meet its regional target.

Now do you see why Johnny B and Tricky Joe want to get their hands on the Land Use portion of our General Plan? And why they have fought so hard against citizen control, instead pushing us towards expensive consultants completely compliant with Sacramento's development demands? They know that if they don't get that done, no matter what CARB and SCAG do their deceit can be stopped at the Michillinda Curtain.

Yet another case where Joe Mosca has failed to live up to the kinds of ethical standards we would expect from a Mayor.

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

71 comments:

  1. Great article!We all need to back State Measure 23.Maybe this will, along with the limp economy, put a crimp in Sacramento's "Orwellian"vision for the future.This is particularly galling when one becomes aware that the mega super multi use expansion blah blah will enrich a few elites and impoverish the quality of life for the rest of us.
    Don't allow this to happen!

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are people who actually think Sacramento is going to
    save the world? Shouldn't we be selling them some bridges or
    something?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Vote yes on 23
    Vote yes on 23
    Vote yes on 23
    Vote yes on 23
    Vote yes on 23
    Vote yes on 23

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brilliant article. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. YES ON 23 YES ON 23 YES ON 23 YES ON 23
    Yes ON 23 YES ON 23 YES ON 23 YES ON 23
    YES ON 23 YES ON 23 YES ON 23 YES ON 23
    YES ON 23 YES ON 23 YES ON 23 YES ON 23
    YES ON 23 YES ON 23 YES ON 23 YES ON 23
    YES YES YES ON 23!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Thanks, Tattler people. Your assignment, make sure at least 10 of your Sierra Madre friends and neighbors vote YES. This is the most disaster prop. on the ballot to Calif. Vote whatever you want on the rest of them but please vote YES on 23!

    ReplyDelete
  6. So Mosca does all that he does because he thinks that someday someone up in Sacramento will notice and make him State Commissioner of Stop Signs or something?

    How truly wonderful for us.

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com/2010/10/carbs-great-big-fat-green-screw-up.html#comments

    John, please add the website on the article, so people can have it on their printed copies? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  8. Even though it is well proven that AB32 and SB375 will NOT add thousands of jobs in the "green" arena and clean up the air magically ovenight, the opponents of Prop. 23 are shamelessly using those arguments against the proposition. Your task, Tattlers, is to counter these lies. Send the Tat to all of your friends and business associates across the State.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Unless they are committed to YES on 23, they do not deserve your vote. I don't care if you are related to them. They do not deserve your vote.
    California is in free fall.
    Tim Donnelly is running for California State Assembly.He deserves all of our votes!
    Tim is committed to YES on 23. He is not a politician, he is one of us.
    Tim and Yes on 23. Most important on your ballots.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It seems obvious to me that the "Green" issue is being used as an excuse for development. You might remember that 3 or 4 years ago SCAG was saying that large scale development was needed because of the millions of people that would be moving to California. Well, that didn't happen. So now the same old people are pushing dvelopment, but this time because it will somehow prevent global warming. Obviously these are people with no shame.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Aren't John and Ken (KFI 640) having a big rally in Costa Mesa this week in support of Yes on 23?

    ReplyDelete
  12. You know the "green" movement is a fraud because they won't discuss population control/birth control. Meg Whitman's illegal housekeeper has eleven (11) siblings, and to "save the planet" I'm supposed to wear bamboo underwear and ride the bus. The big lie of our generation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nice segue Crawford, to Joe and John's agenda to insert their "green" building agenda into our general plan. Voters need to stay informed to stay on top of the gang in Sacramento as well as in Sierra Madre -- it all ties together.
    How can one ignore the fact that AB32 and SB375 will effect everyone living in our town. Don't believe the opposition lies that it will stop the clean air campaign. There are scores of laws on the books that will continue to be in effect to help clear the air. AB32 is a builders dream, and a small business (jobs) killer plain and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I kinda like the idea of jobs leaving California. Maybe if the folks followed the jobs it would lead to less greenhouse gas, less building, fewer politicians and lobbyists, and the immigration problem would below to some other state.

    ReplyDelete
  15. People leaving California might mean that all the "transit oriented development" you see in places like Pasadena might not be able to find the tenants they need to stay out of receivership.

    Oh wait, that already happened.

    ReplyDelete
  16. YES!!!Black&blue,10:08. YOU HAVE HITIT ON TOP OF ITS NASTEY LITTLE HEAD>How about some Z,P,G.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mike from down the pikeOctober 11, 2010 at 10:51 AM

    The future according to Ahnold:
    1) No house. You liff in little transit flat.
    2) No yard. You look out window at da train.
    3) No car. You ride bus. Or else.
    4) No little town. You liff in da big city wiff everybody else.
    5) You happy because now da world is saved.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 9:47 am.
    You make a very interesting point. Thanks for posting this, everyone please read this again!

    "Anonymous said...
    It seems obvious to me that the "Green" issue is being used as an excuse for development. You might remember that 3 or 4 years ago SCAG was saying that large scale development was needed because of the millions of people that would be moving to California. Well, that didn't happen. So now the same old people are pushing dvelopment, but this time because it will somehow prevent global warming. Obviously these are people with no shame"

    ReplyDelete
  19. SCAG is a joke. Problem is, our gang of 4 regime are faithful followers of the unfortunate SGAG agenda.
    Joe Mosca, their most faithful "comrade"
    All the cities should quit SCAG in protest.
    They are making fools of you all.
    By the way, was the City of Bell in SCAG?

    ReplyDelete
  20. John and Ken's voter's guide:

    Proposition 23 - VOTE YES, A THOUSAND TIMES YES!
    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.
    Stop the Global Warming Final Solutions Act. 'Nuff said.

    ReplyDelete
  21. So if we all give up our cars and live in apartments, what is the guarantee that greenhouse gas emissions will come down? New York City has some of most dense development in the world and a mass transit system that is traveled by millions every day. It gives off immense amounts of CO2, and is a greenhouse gas hot point. I am not sure I see any logic to this "solution."

    Obviously automobiles are a huge problem. But with the new low and no emissions technologies not that far down the road, isn't a solution on this way already? Obviously most people in this country prefer personal transportation. It is private, convenient, and time saving. Herding people into lightless urban cores and offering them few travel options outside of public transportation doesn't sound like a solution, it sounds more like a punishment. I don't see the voters going for it myself.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I don't know if we should blame Arnold here. He was told that by signing these bills he would save the world. That appealed to him.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Great article from wattsupwiththat.com

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/07/breaking-sfo-chronicle-says-faulty-science-behind-states-landmark-diesel-law/

    ReplyDelete
  24. The voters didn't go for any of this Air Pollution Control Law, (AB32) the legislature passed it. This was a ruse supported by the Building Industry to take advantage of the Peoples Religion of Green. What 11:55 said makes ultimate sense, but when has California done anything that makes sense?

    It doesn't matter if we are members of SCAG or not, CARB has control over us with their 2020 numbers to lower green house gases. The only way to fight this is to elect people to the legislature that will fight for us against AB32 and other mandates set down from Sacramento.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Everyone in California could die tomorrow, and it would not have any affect at all on "global warming".
    None.
    California never does anything logical. We have the worst politicians this side of Washington DC, they are all either fools or criminals or both.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You will not win this "Global Warming" issue by attacking the symptoms. The issue is the number of people, lots of people (from 5 billion now to 20 billion in our life time). More people driving, eating, defecating, communicating, working, and doing what people do.

    The real solution is:
    1. Give financial reward for family size of 1 or 2.
    2. Flood the world with easy, effective birth control.
    3. Take away tax exemption from Churches that advocate, "be fruitful and multiply", and actively promote unlimited family size.
    4. Put women in charge of "womens reproductive rights" not males who haven't a clue.
    5. Tie welfare to # of children: 2 100%, 3 50% and 4 no welfare.

    Fighting over Props 23, 342 & 375 are exactly what the real/estate, developer, and Chamber of Commerace lobies want. Division and Conquer

    ReplyDelete
  27. The population of the U.S. whites and blacks have been declining. Same with Europe. Only population increasing is Hispanic and Asian in America, Muslim in Europe.
    The population of Japan has been declining for the past 20 years, they have been in deflation for the past 20 years, trying every type of Keynsian economics to correct the problem, with no impact.
    The United States, and most of the world is in deflation.
    What happens when our work force is no longer sufficient to pay for our Social Security and Medicare and Obamacare?
    Oh wait, it's already happened, hasn't it?
    Now California wants to do a walletectomy on all of us.
    Better vote YES on 23, the money you save will be your own. The job you save will be your own or your kid's.
    This will be a total disaster. And for what? To stop "global warming"? No, to put your money in the pockets of the crooked politicians, which of course include Mosca and Buchanan.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The CARB screw ups are a case of ideology over science. Apparently they have known their numbers were wrong for months, but they stalled rather than coming clean with the public.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Blog meister--wouldn't it be important to follow the money behind the YES on Proposition 23? This is what I do in the process of making a decision on how to vote. So, here is one--Why would Marathon Petroleum of Findlay, Ohio donate $500,000.00 to YES on CALIFORNIA Proposition 23?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dunno, 1:47. Probably for the same reason large utilities, developers and realty corporations are coughing up cash to defeat Prop 23. Everybody has to butter the bread they live on.

    Of course, if you think $7 a gallon gas is a happy thing, then you might as well join in.

    Question: You don't really think that the only people hoping to defeat Prop 23 are residents of pot collectives in Humboldt County, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Amen Tattler:
    "the only people who will benefit are the actual builders of this high-density development, and the real estate corporations that will earn millions selling it. "
    The developer/realtor consortium is actually fighting for its survival, and putting on the mask of "For the Common Good"
    Liars.
    We can all see areas that have been developed for the common good - and they are bad, bad, bad, and what a bunch of malarky that these buildings are done without anything tying them to low income.
    The theme of the development/realty industry?
    What the market will bear Baby.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Chicken?Egg?Egg?Chicken?October 11, 2010 at 2:38 PM

    Politically enabled corporate propaganda, or corporately enabled political propaganda? Unholy mix either way, and antithetical to what our country is supposed to be.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I have had conversations with some very, very bright urban planners, and have argued myself hoarse over these very issues. The very bright (and I an not kidding) claim that in order to save the world we need to stop urban sprawl, and if the problem is a bunch of corrupt bastards overbuilding cheap goods, raking up the profits and blowing out of town, then that's the problem that needs fixing. To continue urban sprawl is not a solution to anything, and will only makes problems worse. At the same time, said urban planners do not wish overdevelopment on us, and like this little town - they say NIMBY, I reply LULU. We're kind of stalled there.

    ReplyDelete
  34. You can tell which lobbies have all the sway in this state by who is spending what money. The oil companies are out on their own. But the utilities and developers have Arnold and Steinberg standing right behind them. Funny how some people view oil companies as being somehow worse than utility companies.

    ReplyDelete
  35. There ARE good solutions to these problems Damn it!
    1) Light rail instead of trucks
    2) Cars that run on other things beside gas

    We've known about them for decades and decades.......

    ReplyDelete
  36. The solution to California's greenhouse gas emissions problem is clean technology personal transportation. Which most experts agree is about 10 years away. Which will then give people the opportunity to drive past all those half empty transit oriented developments on their way to their beautiful homes far away from the urban core. The future does look good, and Sacramento cracked vision is not a part of it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Just like in our city, times are hard out there folks. It's not a good time to put people through anymore hardship. It's time to weather the financial storms and build up again, slow & steady. For the state, that means AB32 has to be put on hold; for the city, that means stop spending.
    And please, can we all recognize that the developers are the wolves at the gate?

    ReplyDelete
  38. In spite of this weeks exposure of "Carbongate" they continue to waddle in their faux science and cries of gloom and doom..Their science has been discredited and yet they charge on.Of course ,the elites who are salivating over the Billions they expect don't believe their" science" either, but heck, if there's a big check in it,who cares.
    Wake up,if you vote against Prop 23 you are enriching them and ,alas, cutting your throat and mine as well.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 2:51, in Sierra Madre, they're a lot closer than the gate

    ReplyDelete
  40. CARB's "science" is just marketing for the cap and trade industry.

    ReplyDelete
  41. As for $7.00 a gal for gas--why has Europe been paying high prices for gas for a lot longer than we have been wining about gas at $3.00 plus a gallon. How and why has the car, tire, petroleum industry been subsizing us at the pump for all these years?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Is the city council deeef?October 11, 2010 at 3:02 PM

    NO CONSULTANTS IN SIERRA MADRE
    (EXCEPT FOR FORENSIC AUDIT TYPES)

    ReplyDelete
  43. Sierra Madre already is sustainable.

    If Joe and his brain get their way, we will not be sustainable.

    ReplyDelete
  44. AB32/SB375 is war on the suburbs.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Q) What do Sierra Madre and Joe Mosca's brain have in common?

    A) Both are low density.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Best news I've heard in a while:
    "nowhere in SB 375's text is there a mention of penalties or enforcement should a metropolitan planning organization fail to meet its regional target."
    Of course the Sierra Madre Council majority will not let logic and fact stand in its way

    ReplyDelete
  47. worked on the recallOctober 11, 2010 at 3:13 PM

    Mayor Mosca and ethical standards parted company many moons ago.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anon at 3:00..Europe has always had insanely higher taxes on their gasoline than the US to pay for all their socialized programs. Who else is going to pay for all that 'free medical care'.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Don't get too happy 3:09.
    Google:
    Jerry Brown sues Pleasanton

    ReplyDelete
  50. Jerry Brown. AKA "The Butcher of Pleasanton." Now there's a guy who doesn't give a damn for places like Sierra Madre.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Urban sprawl--ghost towns in the desert--miles and miles of pristine desert bulldozed into oblivion. Where is the water? Why are we flushing toilets with drinking water? Why are we heating the asphalt where we park our cars instead of shading them with solar collectors for hot water and electricity. Utilitiy companies make their money on trasportation of the product longer and longer distances. It makes no sense to collect electricity on the desert and cart in to downtown Los Angeles when the flat roofs and parking lots are here for the retrofit. And do you really like to meditate on the freeway parking lot?

    ReplyDelete
  52. He's ruining the quality of life in places like our town for our own good.
    Two faces good, one face bad.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Excellent ideas 3:36.
    The hitch in the git along is that all things green have been ruthlessly exploited and corrupted by commerce.
    Until there are effective controls, monitoring and enforcement, people would have to be crazy and beyond naive to give developers carte blanche in the name of environmental justice.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Go Green!
    Re-cycle the Sacramento legislature.
    Re-cycle Washington D.C. legislature.

    Nov. 2. VOTE

    ReplyDelete
  55. How is a 340% miscalculation even possible?
    Who was responsible for the math?

    ReplyDelete
  56. CARB's numbers are just there to justify the state legislature's payoff to development lobbyists. Problem is, they got just a little too enthusiastic.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The problem is that when Sacramento is talking about sprawl, they start with us.

    ReplyDelete
  58. According to the SF Chronicle, Yes on 23 has brought in $7.25 million. No on 23? $13.5 million. Just in case you care to know where the big money is going.

    ReplyDelete
  59. There are many, many good people working for a better environment out of a sense of the true benefit to humanity, and all the other species that are stuck here together. Most of the good people just don't seem to get it that there are other kinds of people who don't understand the concept of "humanity" and who have co-opted the green movement.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Cars are green, utility companies are green, oil companies are green, and mile after mile of densely packed generic development is green. It has gotten to the point that when somebody uses the word "green" to describe something, I just assume they're talking about a toxic waste dump.

    ReplyDelete
  61. uhm... prop 23 is probably the most corporate backed initiative out there.

    if you believe:
    "That people can no longer differentiate between politically enabled corporate propaganda and what their actual interests are is a big problem."
    you might want to start by looking in the mirror

    http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures/

    ReplyDelete
  62. if i have to choose between elected representatives and Texas oil companies it's a pretty clear choice -- I go with the elected reps. It may be a choice of the lesser of 2 evils, but oil companies are about the evil-est institution on the planet. So on this one, I go with the politicians.

    If you trust BP you just go right ahead and vote for prop 23

    ReplyDelete
  63. Here's who you're lying down with John (from wikipedia link below):

    Donors

    The Sacramento Bee reported on March 4 that two Texas-based oil companies, Valero Energy Corporation and Tesoro Corporation, provided the campaign with initial funding to launch its petition drive to qualify for the November 2 ballot.[12]

    According to Cal-Access, as of October 1, these donations had been made to the "California Jobs Initiative Committee":[13]
    Donor Amount
    Valero $4,050,000
    Tesoro $1,525,000
    Flint Hills Resources LP (subsidiary of Koch Industries) $1,000,000
    Adam Smith Foundation $498,000
    Occidental Petroleum $300,000
    National Petrochemical and Refiners Association $100,000
    Tower Energy Group $200,000
    World Oil Corp $100,000

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_23_%282010%29#Donors

    You may like the fact think that you can "use" these corporations to get what you want -- but they will squash you like a bug. This is all about big oil getting what they want. You lie down with them you'll wake up with a lot more than fleas.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Actually both sides of the Prop 23 question have massive corporate support. Except that the "No" side is too full of their own crap to admit it.

    ReplyDelete
  65. 9:18 -- evidence or just air?

    I guarantee you Yes on prop 23 will outspend No on prop 23 by at least 10 or 20 to 1.

    If you want to go with big oil, that's your choice, but at least admit who your friends are.

    ReplyDelete
  66. The good thing about the big oil companies is that they aren't here. The bad thing about the BIA, CAR, their lobbyists and the crooks that run Sacramento is that they are. The oil companies didn't drive California into ruin, but those jerks in the state capital sure did. AB 32/SB 375 will be a disaster for small cities like Sierra Madre. Sacramento and the corporations that hold their strings will use it to cram so much garbage development into this town you won't even recognize the place.

    ReplyDelete
  67. http://bigthink.com/ideas/24438

    California Prop 23: Greens Enjoy Major Fundraising Lead

    $16.3 million NO - $8.9 million YES

    So why are hedge funds giving so much to the NO people?

    ReplyDelete
  68. AB32 and SB375 need to go back to the drawing board, start again, and this time DO NOT GET IN BED WITH THE DEVELOPERS

    ReplyDelete
  69. Yes on 23. Anyone who votes NO is either a crook or a fool or both.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Karin Schneider is so dumb she not only can't spell PROGRAM in her CRA presentation...she doesn't know how to use the spell check command on her PowerPoint program.

    ReplyDelete
  71. So, is VALERO now considered profanity?

    Is that why the comment posted with the observation (re: 9:27pm) that VALERO is indeed in Sierra Madre wasn't posted?

    You want to kill biofuels and alternative energy and keep the addiction to oil go right ahead and vote yes on 23.

    And there was a tiny bit more to the NY Times blog referred to by 10:15pm, it said (and you can bet it's true):

    "Representatives from the Yes campaign did not return a request for comment. But Steven Maviglio, a spokesman for the main No campaign, said he still expected the oil and petrochemical interests that account for 97 percent of the Yes contributions to “drop a nuclear bomb” in the coming weeks."

    http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/foes-outspend-backers-of-proposition-23/

    I'll bet you dollars to donuts when you check the final spending the Yes side will have far outspent the No side. Oil companies spent $95 million to defeat prop 87 in 2006 and they'll do the same here.

    and 9:54pm -- anyone who votes Yes on 23 is a tool of big oil -- but then maybe that's who pays your bills

    ReplyDelete