SB350 support hinges on cost vs. environmental protections

MIAMI - JULY 11: Exhaust flows out of the tailpipe of a vehicle at , "Mufflers 4 Less", July 11, 2007 in Miami, Florida. Florida Governor Charlie Crist plans on adopting California's tough car-pollution standards for reducing greenhouse gases under executive orders he plans to sign Friday in Miami. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Looking at the results of the California Business Roundtable/California Manufacturing & Technology Association poll on Senate Bill 350, the new climate change policy being considered in the CA Legislature, you can almost see how campaign arguments would be formulated if the hotly debated bill were on a ballot for voters to decide.

The poll conducted by M4 Mobile Research clearly showed that the public at large supports the goals of reducing greenhouse gases. While 82 percent of those polled consider climate change a serious or moderate threat to the state, when the components of the bill are tested the support remains strong.

Cutting petroleum use by half in cars and trucks by 2030, requiring 50 percent of the state’s electricity to come from renewable energy sources and doubling energy efficiency in buildings over the next 15 years enjoyed overwhelming support, all three items tested in the 70th percentile. Overall, SB350 was favored 66 percent to 27 percent.

However, the overall number turned around when the potential cost was addressed by the pollster.

After testing a wide range of specific arguments from positive to negative on the measure — i.e.: California must lead on climate change issues; implementing this legislation will lead to positive innovation; price of gasoline could increase 13 to 50 cents a gallon; electricity rates could jump 30 to 70 percent; disadvantaged citizens will be particularly hard hit by the change – the respondents were again asked if they supported or opposed SB350.

Support dropped from 66 percent to 44 percent, opposition increased from 27 percent to 48 percent.

Rob Lapsley, head of the California Business Roundtable summed up the poll succinctly when he said, “costs matter … details matter.”

The details of how to achieve the goals expressed in the bill are not contained in the measure.

Dorothy Rothrock said manufacturers in her association are feeling the pinch from electricity costs associated with climate change laws already on the books and can see incredible increases in the future if this bill passes in its current form.

Which leads to speculation, will this fight spill out of the capitol building and on to the ballot?

If the bill is passed and signed by the governor, will a referendum effort be mounted to ask the voters to decide – those voters who embrace the idea of a clean environment and climate change legislation but are leery of what the costs would mean for the economy, jobs and low income citizens?

The poll indicates that the arguments are lined up to produce quite a donnybrook if the voters are consulted.

16 comments

Write a comment
  1. Ronald Stein
    Ronald Stein 1 September, 2015, 05:35

    The “emissions crusade” that started in 2006 when AB32 the Global Warming Initiative was signed into law was at a time that California was contributing a miniscule 1% to the Worlds Green House Gasses. Over the last decade the government has collected billions of dollars as a result of over regulations, cap and trade fees, etc., for the government and dramatically increased the costs for energy and products to all 38 million that live in California.

    Now, SB-350 the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015, when signed into law will further reduce that 1% by 80%, down to 0.2% which will further increase the costs for energy and products for all Californians. In addition, SB350 will mandate a 50% reduction is use of transportation fuels by 2030 from the current 40 million gallons a day to 20 million gallons a day from the growing population and growing numbers of vehicles, which will essentially mandate that everyone can only drive halfway to work or halfway to school to meet that mandate.

    Reply this comment
  2. Bruce
    Bruce 1 September, 2015, 06:51

    The sun leads on climate change issues, not man.

    Reply this comment
  3. Sean
    Sean 1 September, 2015, 08:13

    Perhaps this bill will give new meaning to the term “leakage”. In the past it meant that energy intensive production moved to regions where carbon is not regulated. California has lost much of the industry that generated the middle class wages which made it such a great destination after WWII. The costs of energy, regulation, housing, litigation (where everyone seems to have standing), will likely drive out all but the highest margin businesses that can afford to stay in the state. So “leakage” may come to mean emigration and displacement of lower margin businesses and their employees. Increases in both wealth and poverty should be expected. California’s Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality, is 6th highest in the nation. SB350 should push them up the list.

    Reply this comment
  4. Skep41
    Skep41 1 September, 2015, 09:28

    Can the electorate of this state get any dumber? Nevada and Arizona, with governors and legislators Evil Republican Puppets Of The Oil Oligarchy, have gasoline prices half of what they are in this Green Paradise run by The Party Of Compassion. These Progressives want you out of your car…got it? They dont care that fewer trucks will mean much higher retail prices, that the business climate of this state will become untenable for industries like agriculture, that the port at Long Beach/ San Pedro (the largest in the nation) would be severely impacted…it doesnt matter to them because the people who vote Democrat will always vote Democrat as long as the Republiclowns come up with Bible-banging homophobic gun nuts repulsive enough to scare any normal human off. The Left runs amok with no hope in sight that it will stop.

    Reply this comment
  5. pancho
    pancho 1 September, 2015, 17:36

    Who cares? Me and my friend’s do not register cars or have licenses.
    We fill our cars at the farmer’s pump and do not pay road taxes. My daughter goes to UCLA free .

    Reply this comment
  6. Pancho
    Pancho 2 September, 2015, 05:42

    My party affiliation is a Mexican quinceancera
    Muchachas, cerveza, guns, machismo..party.

    Reply this comment
  7. pancho
    pancho 2 September, 2015, 18:50

    She major in Incan transgender studies and wants to fight for oppressed against white privilege. She really upset she does not have poolside apartment, but she no pay nothin. No good white people take good rooms. Not fair.

    Reply this comment
    • Ulysses Uhaul
      Ulysses Uhaul 2 September, 2015, 19:55

      Paquito,

      Tell your daughter watch that gringo dorm food……peas and mac n cheese are a regular for lunch….din din….chicken and dumplings……otherwise, she may balloon up real quick stunting her class performance in ancient indigenous circle dances! Hope the class does good, for some luau joint may give them a gig for Mai Tai’s.

      Reply this comment
  8. spurwing Plover
    spurwing Plover 4 September, 2015, 21:52

    Now if these hollywood type would realy do something other then appearing on some tv ads or junkmail for Sierra Clubor Greenpeace would might get something done

    Reply this comment
  9. Ulysses Uhaul
    Ulysses Uhaul 5 September, 2015, 10:21

    Spuree,

    Are you insane? No one cares about the enviro ebbs and flows on CWD. It is GED educated cops, fat government pensions, bowing to duly elected authority figures.

    Enviro gets lots of science suspect emotional posts, but 90% of them are from technically uneducated loons , daff white belt and polyester pants wearing seniors, classless desert rednecks with controlling people issues….chaos….sorta like the unhappy, stay with mom, public college educated “modern” trying to run inner city kindergarten on the very first day……. over and over again.

    Reply this comment
  10. spurwing Plover
    spurwing Plover 9 September, 2015, 06:50

    These eco-freaks(Grenpeace,NRCD,Sierra Club etc)can always depend upon some hollywood celeberty like Robert Redford to do junk mail and fruadulent TV ads for them even while Redford sells property he owns to developers

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Oregon claim of assisted suicide safeguards has critics

A key argument spurring Gov. Jerry Brown’s recent decision to sign a bill allowing physician-assisted suicide in California, and the

‘Liberal’ 9th Circuit backs government spying

June 10, 2013 By John Seiler The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is supposed to be the most liberal

CDCR: No Visiting on Labor Day!

Anthony Pignataro: It’s finally happened. We’ve all known that not agreeing upon a state budget (this is Day 55 without