How I’m voting for the environment in the Nov. 4, 2008 election.
Despite the fact that it sounds like an eco-friendly measure, Prop 7 has the unique privilege of being opposed by pretty much every enviro group I like. The No on Prop 7 peeps include the California League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club California, Union of Concerned Scientists, and many others.
In addition, a whole bunch of renewable energy companies — companies that should ostensibly benefit from this pro-renewable energy measure — are against it. So are the League of Women Voters of California and the LA City Council.
In fact, the LA Times — which is also against the measure — notes that the main supporters seem to be voters who haven’t actually read into the measure “because, at first glance, it looks terrific.”
The problem with Prop 7 is this. While the Proposition would gradually increase the state’s renewable energy requirement to 50 percent renewably sourced by 2025, it also creates all sorts of weird problems and loopholes. Opponents of the measure say that small wind and solar energy companies will be forced out of the market (proponents say it’s “highly unlikely that any agency or court will interpret Prop. 7 to disqualify projects 30 megawatts and under from inclusion”), keep renewable energy prices artificially high, discourage the development of renewable energy storage capabilities, etc. etc.
If you’re an energy wonk and are interested in evaluating the nitty gritties of the arguments, read all the above links plus this analysis by Tom Beach of Crossborder Energy (via Grist). But if you have trouble making it through sentences such as this one by Tom — “The CEC’s Intermittency Analysis Project (IAP) study, released last summer, showed that a 33% RPS goal is technically feasible with modest integration costs, so long as there is a reasonable balance between the amounts of wind and solar that are procured” — you may need to rely a little more heavily on the opinions of the more knowledgeable experts from enviro-organizations you trust.
Afraid that Prop 7 — even if flawed — may be our only chance to pass an aggressive renewable energy bill? Rest assured other initiatives are underway. The LA Times reports:
Under a law passed two years ago, the state is on a path to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. There’s broad agreement among policy-makers, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, that in order to reach this goal, the state must get 33% of its power from renewable sources by 2020. A bill that would have set the 33% renewable standard stalled this year in the Legislature, but given its powerful backing, there’s good reason to believe it will pass next year.
This is very surprising.. Thank you for linking to these other articles. I definately have a lot more research to do before I decide on this one.. I was in the camp thinking “well this is a start, and some green energy is a lot better than no green energy.”
What do you think about proposition 10 (the one to subsidize alternative fuel cars, fund research, etc)?
This is going to be a very interesting election, no matter which angle you look at it from…
Comment by Chris — October 28, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
The unfortunate untold story is that these environmental groups have longstanding ties to the utility companies who are funding the no side. Google Confused in Solar California. Also, for more information about prop 7 from an unbiased source, please read: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/10/24/121119/72
Comment by So_much_to_say — October 28, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
So_much_to_say — Um, I actually have a link to that story in the post itself…. In any case, if you have actual proof of your eco-conspiracy theory, I think we’d all love to find out more about it –
Chris — I’ll write about prop 10 soon :) Glad you found the links helpful!
Comment by Siel — October 28, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
NRDC & Mainstream Enviros Not to be Trusted:
Dear Green LA Girl,
I’ve liked your presence on the web — I believe it was from your blogging about Starbucks that you first showed up on my radar; however I disagree with your outright deferral to the mainstream California enviros in regards to prop 7. I am no expert on energy policy and thus cannot evaluate the benefits and faults of Prop 7; but I am quite distrustful of the mainstream enviros.
An anonymous blogger by the handle of SolarCaliGirl has been slamming the ethics and judgment of NRDC and the other elite enviros who’ve been criticizing Prop 7. http://www.confusedinsolarcalifornia.blogspot.com This blog points out that various anti-Prop 7 groups such as CEERT and CLCV receive funding from and have representatives on their boards from electric utilities. Moreover, many of these enviro groups sit on other boards with corporate representatives, which in my view engenders undue friendliness and a disinclination to strongly challenge these interests. SolarCaliGirl’s blog points out that NRDC played an active role in designing and defending California’s electricity restructuring and we saw how well that worked out. Considering that NRDC utterly botched deregulation, setting California up to be plundered by the energy companies such as Enron which NRDC had gone to bat for and dubbed “progressive”, a more self-reflective environmental community would not be assigning trust to NRDC.
The expert Mr. Beach of CrossBorder Energy to whose analysis you link seems to be well versed on energy policy. He’s represented solar and wind interests, however has also represented natural gas and other companies who generate power through various means and might not like the strong renewable energy goals of Prop 7. Note his testimony ( http://tinyurl.com/5apn8m ) on behalf of the “California Producers” which includes the “Western States Petroleum Association and the California Independent Petroleum Associations”. In his bio at the end of the document, you find that he’s been paid by Calpine, Mirant, Duke Energy, the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission, as well as Pacific Gas & Electric, a major funder of the No On 7 campaign. I’d be hesitant to rely on the judgment of one whose working on behalf of such a range of interests. Sadly I thinks this type of conflict from tight relationships to utility interests also applies to many of the enviros opposing 7. For example, the group VoteSolar which referred to his testimony has been all to comfortable taking funding from Pacific Gas & Electric, Chevron, and other energy companies — http://www.votesolar.org/equinox2/thank_you/
For some other supportive views on Prop 7, take a look at
Comment in favor of Prop 7 by Donald Aitken, Ph.D.,
http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/10/22/california-will-vote-on-misleading-renewable-energy-initiatives/
who from his bio seems to have done quite a bit of work on behalf of solar
http://www.donaldaitkenassociates.com/bio_da.html
Renewable energy goals achievable under Proposition 7 by S. David Freeman
http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_10830653?source=most_emailed
Regardless of how things work out on Prop 7, the future of the planet may require carrying out a close examination of the mainstream “enviros” and pondering whether they should be entrusted to continue in their role as arbiters of environmental policy. Unfortunately, the mainstream media and most of the blog community ignore these issues.
Regards, bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch dot org
Comment by bernardo issel — October 29, 2008 @ 8:31 am
Hey Bernardo — You’ve certainly picked an ambitious name — nonprofitwatch — for your personal project!
My general difficulties with trusting an anonymous blogger aside, I thought you’d find this review of Green, Inc. interesting. The book itself sounds like something you’d really like, since it basically argues what you’re arguing here — that big enviro nonprofits have become horribly corrupt.
The book review, on the other hand, is more levelheaded, and points this out about the book author’s argument:
MacDonald wants the reader to accept her premise that the environmental movement has been irreparably corrupted merely because of corporate partnerships — i.e., guilt by association. The author is unable to see any value in conservation groups embracing such alliances in a bid to steer environmental policies within the business community.
Your comment — and SolarCalGirl — does the same. And for me, proof of wrongdoing has to go beyond just guilt by association.
Comment by Siel — November 3, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
“..these enviro groups sit on other boards with corporate representatives, which in my view engenders undue friendliness and a disinclination to strongly challenge these interests.”
so true:
http://www.yeson7.net/colbertnpope.html
Comment by James — November 4, 2008 @ 12:35 pm