Oct 01 2008
Environmentalists Urge No Vote on Prop 7
This November, Californians will consider a ballot initiative that could reshape the state’s energy future. With alternative renewable sources of energy becoming a national issue in this year’s presidential race, Proposition 7 requires that utility companies in California obtain half of their power from solar, wind and other resources by 2025. The Solar and Clean Energy Act, sounds like a pretty good idea for those who care about the environment. In addition to renewable energy requirements, the initiative would include public utilities into the standards and impose penalties on non-compliance. Why then are so many of California’s leading environmental organizations opposing Proposition 7? Groups like the League of Conservation Voters, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Natural Resources Defense Council are urging a no vote on the Soalr and Clean Energy Act. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the initiative means well, but contains major flaws they say could actually impede the state’s progress towards renewable energy.
GUEST: Ralph Cavanagh, co-director of NRDC’s energy program.
Related Links
5 Responses to “Environmentalists Urge No Vote on Prop 7”
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_7_%282008%29
See Greenwashing section (enough said):
The campaign against Proposition 7 has drawn questions about the ties between Pacific Gas & Electric, Sempra, and Southern Cal Edison, and the environmental groups that have come out the most vocally against the measure. Articles from the late nineties and 2000-2001 linking the Natural Resources Defense Council to the passage of electricity deregulation, leading to the energy crisis over which Governor Gray Davis was recalled, have resurfaced, leading many to question the veracity of the environmental opposition. Still more question the independence of groups like the CA League of Conservation Voters (CLVC) and Acterra, which have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the utilities funding the No on Prop 7 campaign and have overlapping board membership with the utilities.
In a letter to 2,000 Northern California Solar Energy Association members, Dr. Donald Aitken wrote: “…It dismays me to see the environmental organizations resorting to such tactics, and presenting arguments not based on fact, or that distort fact. And it should certainly dismay them to be in bed with the utilities, who are absolutely gleeful that they have a cover for their perennial opposition to more aggressive applications of renewables.”
Once again, all I hear is the same, tired rhetoric of the utility companies. Poorly written, transmission problems, yada yada yada. ALL speculation and NEVER any facts. Please do your listeners a favor and ask the REAL questions. Maybe like asking your guest Ralph Cavanaugh, what happened last time him and the utility companies stood on the same side of an argument. We had “deregulation†and an energy crisis with rolling blackouts. And, why have the utility companies spent $27 million dollars to defeat this Prop? Maybe it threatens potential loss of profits. Now why on earth would I believe that Ralph Cavanaugh is my advocate as a consumer?
For real info that doesn’t simply try to attach environmental groups to Big Utilities, see :
http://californiaphoton.com/policy/propositions/prop7/index.html
“The Solar and Clean Energy Act, sounds like a pretty good idea for those who care about the environment.” I think it sounds like a pretty darn good idea for every single Californian! The Air Resources Board did a study about the benefits of reaching the RPS goals of AB32 (what Prop. 7 is going to enforce and extend) and concluded that not only would there be health benefits from cleaner air BUT ALSO it would be economically beneficial to California by an increased economic production of $27 billion!!
AB32 alone without changes will create over 100,000 new jobs – and extended by Prop. 7 it will increase to over 370,000 new, prevailing wage, Californian jobs!! These can’t be outsourced, they’re going to stay here in California producing electricity IN state for our energy needs HERE. This is real tangible economic benefits to each individual – “increased overall personal income by $14 billion”. Our economy could use that boost right about now.
Check it out for yourself: http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/2008/09/benefits-of-environmental-regulation.html
Then it sounds even better when you read about the prevention of premature deaths, nearly 9,000 less asthma cases, and 53,000 avoided work loss days.
That all sounds pretty to good to someone who may not even care about the environment. If you do care about it (I do) then it sounds really darn good. I read through all 16 and a half pages about Prop. 7 in the voter guide book. There’s no serious flaw in the text. The serious flaws I saw were the false claims and fear tactics by the opposition to it. What a nerve they’ve got calling themselves “Californian’s against another costly energy scheme”. Ralph Cavanaugh who spoke for this program was in the party responsible for the last (2001) costly energy scheme which they know we’re still paying for and try to cite that fact as a reason to vote down Prop. 7. What a scheme!! Look that up for yourselves too: http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/enviros.html
Wow, Uprising, I really expected more from you guys…What happened? Did PG&E or SoCal Edison give you guys a grant or something??? Using Ralph Cavanaugh as a credible source?
“On environmental stewardship, our experience is that you can trust Enron.” — Ralph Cavanagh, NRDC.
Need I say more?