ThinkProgress.org

In 2006, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, known as Assembly Bill 32, was passed, and called for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. It was a bipartisan, significant effort that has already yielded green jobs in California, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and served as a model for other legislative efforts. As one might expect, however, the legislation is under a furious and well-funded assault by Big Oil and those ideologically opposed to addressing climate change. This fall, voters in California will pull the lever for or against Proposition 23, which if passed, would immediately suspend AB 32‘s effects. The usual conspirators — including Koch Industries — have been funding the opposition, and the debate is looming larger over the tightly-contested gubernatorial and U.S. Senate elections there. California voters have a choice between continuing progress on climate change, or helping already-wealthy and powerful industrial interests protect their bottom line.

AB32’S IMPACT: Assembly Bill 32 was passed to address a real threat in California — sea levels along California’s coast have been steadily rising and are projected to climb nearly 5 feet by 2100, threatening $100 billion in property and infrastructure like homes, office buildings, roads, and power plants. Addressing climate change in California would not only help residents, but also the world — as the eighth-largest economy on the planet, California could contribute significantly to the reduction of overall greenhouse gases. AB 32 is also serving as a useful trial balloon for climate change legislation in other states and at the federal level. As ClimateProgress has detailed, AB 32 is a model of bipartisan action on clean energy. A Democratic-controlled legislature passed the measure with support from business, labor, environmental and health organizations and Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed it into law. AB 32’s approach mirrors the legislation recently passed in the House — though the version sponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) is has been delayed in the Senate. Aside from positively affecting global climate change and legislative efforts elsewhere, AB 32 has already had a positive economic impact on California. More than 100 economists with expertise in California energy and climate issues signed an open letter in July opposing any change to AB 32. “Delaying action now and waiting for the future before initiating accelerated action to reduce global warming gases will be more costly than initiating action now,” the letter states. As CAP has written, doing away with AB 32 would damage California’s clean-energy economy and exacerbate the unemployment problem crippling the emerging clean energy industries. According to the California Employment Development Department, hundreds of thousands of employees already work part- or full-time manufacturing, construction or other green jobs. Over $9 billion in venture capital since 2005 — 60 percent of all venture capital invested across the U.S. during that period —  has been invested in California clean energy initiatives. A study released yesterday by the University of California Berkely found that “Passage of Proposition 23 would result in direct job losses.”

KOCH INFLUENCE: Unsurprisingly, the fossil fuel industry is vigorously opposed to AB 32, and is pumping considerable resources into passing Proposition 23. Contributions to the Yes on 23 campaign are now over $8 million — and 97 percent comes from oil companies, and 89 percent comes from out of state. Among the most active companies are two Texas firms: Valero Energy and Tesoro Corp. Valero, Tesoro and Koch Industries alone have funded more than $6.5 million of the opposition. The Wonk Room recently obtained a PowerPoint file that a Tesoro executive presented at a large oil conference — attended by giants like BP, Exxon Mobile, and Shell Pipeline — urging fellow companies to fund the AB 32 opposition because Tesoro determined it would have a negative “impact on business.” While Tesoro’s presentation did yield almost immediate donations from a handful of companies, the big-name groups like BP and Exxon Mobile did not donate — at least publicly. However, the Adam Smith Foundation, a Missouri-based nonprofit, is mysteriously funding much of the opposition to AB 32. The foundation is not required to disclose its finances, but many suspect that it is spending the oil industry‘s money. And the now-notorious Koch family  has gotten involved in trying to stop this progressive policy initiative. Koch Industries is already the largest funder of climate change denial and anti-environmental regulation fronts worldwide, and not incidentally, is also the 10th-worst air polluter in America. The Wonk Room learned in August that Koch Industries is also a serious participant in blocking AB 32. In its corporate newsletter, Koch Industries explicitly stated that the low fuel standards set forth in AB 32 would harm the companies’ bottom line and would “be very bad news for our industry.” Koch has been funding the Pacific Institute, the main think tank producing junk studies that smear AB 32, and on Sept. 2, a Koch Industries subsidiary made a $1 million donation to the campaign for Proposition 23. A spokeswoman said the company “may consider additional support.” Leading Proposition 23 proponent Assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Linda) told the Wonk Room he expected a whopping $50 million to be raised in support of the campaign to overturn AB 32, dishonestly dubbed the “California Jobs Initiative.” In order to appeal further to moderates who may not have an ideological opposition to addressing climate change, the campaign is simply calling for a “suspension” of AB 32 until California’s unemployment rate drops below 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters — something that has only happened three times since 1976.

THE POLITICAL GAME: This November, the other candidates on the ballot along with Proposition 23 cannot avoid taking a position — try as some of them might. California GOP Senate nominee Carly Fiorina was repeatedly asked during a debate with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) if she supported Proposition 23, and she repeatedly deferred offering an opinion. Two days later, however, she issued a statement in support of Proposition 23 and advanced the phony jobs claim: “AB 32 is undoubtedly a job killer, and it should be suspended,” the statement read. Meg Whitman, the GOP nominee for governor, is still wavering on Proposition 23 and will neither endorse nor condemn it. As the Los Angeles Times describes, Proposition 23 is “lose-lose” for GOP candidates, who must “appeas[e] members of their party who want to suspend the global warming bill while wooing environmentally-conscious independent voters who could carry them to victory in November.” The Obama administration, however, has weighed in opposition to Proposition 23: Energy Secretary Steven Chu calls the measure a “terrible setback” and EPA regional administrator Jared Blumenfeld has said Proposition 23 would send a “terrible and false message” to the rest of the country. GOP-aligned business interests favor Proposition 23, though they are doing it softly. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed AB 32 when it was passed, and has recently been criticizing AB 32 on phony job-killing claims. It has endorsed Fiorina, but stopped short of outwardly supporting Proposition 23. The California Chamber of Commerce has also said it will remain neutral. But some local business groups are opposing Proposition 23, as many did when it was passed — for example, the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce came out against the initiative, saying only that it “needs to be implemented carefully and that consideration of impacts on the state economy should be taken into account as part of that process.” Ultimately, however, the voters of California — not the politicians or business interests — will decide whether to allow AB 32 to continue creating jobs and reducing greenhouse gas pollution.