Big Green Outspends Big Oil!

Anthony Pignataro:

Just want to take a few moments to congratulate Steve Maviglio, the official spokesman for the No on Prop. 23 campaign. Back in June, Maviglio told me that there was no way his little upstart effort built on non-profit environmental organizations to stop the Yes on 23 camp from dismantling our state’s global warming regulations could compete in terms of campaign contributions.

“I think it’s safe to say we’ll be outspent by the deep pockets of the oil companies,” he said.

Well, today’s Los Angeles Times says Maviglio is wrong, Wrong, WRONG. Turns out that Big Green may, in fact, trump Big Oil.

“As of Thursday, opponents of Proposition 23 had raised $19.6 million, more than twice as much as supporters of the initiative, which is mainly funded by major oil refiners based in Texas, Kansas and Ohio,” the Times reported.

Twice as much. Ouch.

OCT. 15, 2010

No comments

Write a comment
  1. Paul Taylor Examiner
    Paul Taylor Examiner 15 October, 2010, 09:32

    California has been a leader in American trends of entertainment, outdoor sports, cars, alternative lifestyles, environmentalism, and unfortunately of late, dysfunctional state government. Today, the once “Golden State” is deeply tarnished by massive annual budget deficits and political corruption where the partisan special interests of militant labor union, divisive immigrant and radical environmental lobbies reign supreme.

    Californians are suffering an unprecedented 12.5% unemployment rate as economic recession deepens. Californians, without any federal orders or proof of climate benefits, naively approved the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32). AB 32 would impose costly 2012 reductions in state greenhouse gases for global warming benefits. All new environmental regulations increase the unit production costs and corresponding consumer prices of all goods, services, energies and activities. AB 32 would further punish California businesses and families with more taxes, energy expenses and unemployment as we enter the third year of an historic national economic recession.

    Proof of the punishing impacts of environmental regulations can be observed in records of U.S. unemployment rates. The massive and ubiquitous tangle of U.S. environmental regulations began to expand from the federal government level in the 1970s. Today, environmental regulations and their attendant mob of bureaucrats at local, state and federal governments cost us about 5% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). Environmental regulations have also become a free-for-all of eco-group propaganda and gratuitous litigation. Rules are issued by green-obsessed government do-gooders without mention of long term costs, unemployment or proof of actual environmental benefits.

    Using U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) records of U.S. unemployment data, the impact of U.S. environmental regulations upon unemployment can be seen in the 30 years before, and after, the 1970 enviro-policy explosions:
    • The average U.S. unemployment rate from 1940 (excluding WWII) to 1970 was 4.5%;
    • The average U.S. unemployment rate from 1970 to 2000 was 6%;
    • As environmental regulations expanded after 1970, 30-year average unemployment increased by 33.3%.

    California voters can delay the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) by voting for Prop. 23 on November 2nd. Prop. 23 would suspend implementation of AB 32 greenhouse gas controls until the state’s unemployment rate is reduced to below an unemployment rate benchmark of 5.5%.

    California’s Prop. 23 benchmarking of future environmental regulations to economic performance (recovery) should be a model for U.S. Government environmental regulations. The “new” U.S. Congress should pass legislation to suspend all pending and future environmental regulations until U.S. unemployment recovers to the post-1970 average of 6.5%. The U.S., and each state, must reset the reckless pace of environmental regulation to an economic benchmark. The so-called ”new green economy” is a green fantasy that should not be a national (or state) priority.

    Reply this comment
  2. Eric Maundry
    Eric Maundry 15 October, 2010, 11:47

    Couple AB 32 to SB 375 and it is easy to see that this had a lot more to do with Sacramento paying off its development and realty lobbyist friends than anything else. The notion that building high density development next to bus stations and trolly lines will somehow convince people to give up their cars is sheer fantasy. Condos will not save the world. Low emission personal transportation is about 10 years away. Technology and private industry will be the ones to solve the greenhouse gas problem, not planners and the bureaucrats who love them. And when this low emission personal transportation is in the hands of consumers, they will happily drive by all the “transit oriented development” and “walkable space” for a far better life elsewhere.

    Hopefully Sacramento will not have done too much damage to california’s small cities and suburban communities before then.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Strategic error in Filner recall bid? Maybe

The Bob Filner saga continues to unfold in San Diego. The biggest news is that a gay-baiting gay activist is

When unions eat their own

Here’s a great story in the latest Sacramento News & Review about nasty infighting at the California Statewide Law Enforcement

Tax Increment = Crony Capitalism

Steven Greenhut: Republican who defend redevelopment agencies and who rallied to save them from Gov. Jerry Brown’s cuts, often argue