Town Square

Post a New Topic

Proposition 23 -- The Big Oil Initiative

Original post made by Rae, Mohr Park, on Oct 25, 2010

Proposition 23 aims to suspend implementation of AB32, the Air Pollution Control law, but it's written in a way to make Californians believe that it's really about pushing back unemployment and promoting job growth. In fact, the funders of Prop 23 are even calling it a "jobs initiative". Do not be fooled! Prop 23 is not a "jobs initiative". Prop 23 is almost completely funded by out-of-state big oil and is all about protecting oil company profits to the detriment of Californians.

The largest contributor by far to Prop 23 is Valero Energy, a Texas-based oil refining and marketing company, with $4,059,678 in the Prop 23 pot. That $4M is a drop in the bucket when compared to the $4.5 billion dollars of profit Valero has made since 2002 when they purchased their second California refinery. According to company financial reports, Valero has "37% higher margins on each barrel of oil it refined in California than at refineries it owns elsewhere in the country". Why? "Higher than average gasoline prices in the West, created by artificially low supplies during periods of high demand." There's even an insider name for profits gained from gouging Californians at the pump – it's called the "California Premium". And this is a company that has Californian's welfare at heart and is going to promote jobs in California? That'll be the day!!
[portion removed because of length]

Please vote NO on Proposition 23!

Fppc/Prop 23 funding: Web Link

Valero: Web Link

Adam Smith Foundation: Web Link

"Top 100 Toxic Air Polluters": Web Link

Comments (32)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by 23 is YES for me
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2010 at 6:27 pm

This is the wrong time for AB32. Nothing could be more destructive to small & med business at this time. The nation may be 9.5 % UNemployment, but folks CA is 12.4 % UNemployment ! ! Worst since depression ! My family is living the nightmare. Priorities are really screwed by some blind green zealot ELITES ( & some VERY ignorant partisans). This is NOT about oil or oil co, this is about suffering Californians, who will have more difficulty finding a business in a position to hire. WHEN UNemployment is solved with JOBS, JOBS, JOBS....that will be the time to resume the green dreams that so far have not proven fruitful. Postpone starting the punitive measures & requirments that will further stiffle small business ! !


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arroyo
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2010 at 6:33 pm

"23 is Yes"

You nailed it....!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 25, 2010 at 6:59 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

The primary reason companies hire employees is to meet demand. Repealing climate regulation is NOT going to lead to more hiring.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arroyo
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2010 at 8:39 pm

Hmmmmmm, have you ever owned a business?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rae
a resident of Mohr Park
on Oct 25, 2010 at 8:49 pm

Proposition 23 has *nothing* to do with California job creation, and everything to do with protecting big oil profits. Proposition 23 was written to stop AB32 from taking effect. AB32 was written to ensure that gross air polluters clean up their emissions. Clean air, however, is not profitable.

It is *not* a coincidence that the top four backers of Prop 23, who have put millions into support of Prop 23 in order to stop AB32, are all listed on the "Toxic 100 Air Polluters" list issued March 2010 by the University of Massachusetts Amhurst.

Valero, with its $4.1M contribution is #12 on the top 100 Toxic Air Polluter list. Tesoro Oil, a TX-based oil refiner with its $1.5M contribution is #32. Flint Hills Resources/Koch Industries, a KS-based oil refining & chemical company with its $1M contribution is #10. Occidental Petroleum, the largest oil producer in TX, with its $300K contribution is #61.

Do not be fooled by the rhetoric. Proposition 23 is *not* a "jobs initiative". If anything, it has a negative impact on those small and medium companies who manufacture and install the equipment that would be used to "scrub" the oil refineries emissions. Please vote NO on prop 23!

Toxic 100 Air Polluters list: Web Link
FPPC/Prop 23 Funding: Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2010 at 9:26 pm

The founders of Microsoft and Google also oppose prop 23.

There is a provision in the proposition that says unemployment in California has to be below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters before the law cutting greenhouse gasses takes effect. That has only happened three times since 1970.

Stacey is right about demand, and I have owned a business. Have you Arroyo? And I mean something more than a lemonade stand.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arroyo
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2010 at 10:01 pm

Stacey is right about demand, and I have owned a business. Have you Arroyo? And I mean something more than a lemonade stand.

Patriot,

I've been a union member, a labor contract negotiator, industry association president, member of the board of directors of an industry management association for over 15 years, and CEO of three different corporations. And, none of them were oil companies.

Your turn!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 25, 2010 at 10:24 pm

Stacey is WRONg, however, about repealing any regulation, prop 23 DELAYS implementation of AB32 until unemployment drops.

If you think AB32 will solve climate change and if you think that is a higher priority than JOBS, vote no on 23
If you think jobs are the top priority, vote yes on 23


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 25, 2010 at 10:41 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

If you think jobs are the top priority, vote no on 23. It does nothing to create jobs and worse, it creates an incentive for companies to NOT hire. It's just one of these initiatives that creates the illusion of being good for jobs.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A Neighbor
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2010 at 10:43 pm

"...prop 23 DELAYS implementation of AB32 until unemployment drops." It would require unemployment in CA to drop to 5.5% and be sustained there for four consequential quarters, a feat has only been accomplished three times in the last 40 years.

In other words, the bar for reinstituting the limits of AB32 is set almost unattainably high by Prop.23.

Prop 23 would be a major step backwards. It would quickly curtail the explosive job growth that AB 32 helped to facilitate. Because of this legislation, more than 500,000 jobs and 12,000 businesses have been created, attracting more than $10 billion in venture capital,
according to Gary Fazzino, vice president of Government Affairs at Applied Materials, Inc.

He is responsible for overseeing all of the Company's global government relations programs. Applied Materials has built a billion dollar energy and environmental solutions business since AB 32 was enacted four years ago, resulting in the employment of hundreds of people in CA, where Applied Materials is headquartered, and around the world.

I think global and act local. I will vote against the repeal.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 25, 2010 at 10:55 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

A Neighbor's post echoes exactly what I was saying on the other thread about how government can support the private sector to create jobs. Jimf01 would have those 12,000 new businesses go out of business and dump 500,000 people into the unemployment line all in the name of some ideological fantasy that such regulation hinders job creation.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arroyo
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 25, 2010 at 11:18 pm

A bloated, but well-meaning government bureaucracy, and the over-regulation of an industry, will kill businesses. Kill the businesses, or the industry, and you will lose the workforce.

I'm no supporter of the oil industry, but I am a supporter of local workers with decent jobs. We're forcing companies out of California at an alarming rate. Then we wonder why we have such high unemployment, and the need to raise taxes for those still working to support our infrastructure.

Use your vote wisely.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Here we go
a resident of Del Prado
on Oct 26, 2010 at 6:43 am

Rae said; "Higher than average gasoline prices in the West, created by artificially low supplies during periods of high demand." There's even an insider name for profits gained from gouging Californians at the pump – it's called the "California Premium".

Rae, please either stop misleading people or learn the facts. The artificially low supplies in California were created by....the State of California. That's right, this state requires a special blend all in the name of protecting the environment. That means that when demand increases the oil companies cannot bring in fuel from neighboring states. And we all know what happens when demand outpaces supply.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 26, 2010 at 8:25 am

The ideology at work here is apparent, the blog that the Applied Materials info came from is here:

Web Link

Two entries down : Vote out global warming deniers. It not just Prop 23 at stake.

So if you believe the phony data the IPCC used (hockey stick) builds the case for anthropogenic, and the fraud scientist who built the case for AB32 at the CARB, then you can vote no on 23

If you think we can build energy and environmental solutions, and at the same time, produce the energy here that we now import from despots, dictatorships, and countries that sponsor terrorists, then you can vote Yes on 23.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 26, 2010 at 8:42 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Jimf01 diverts readers from the basis of Prop. 23. It operates on the false assumption that businesses are not creating jobs because of government regulation and if we delay the implementation of the regulation, businesses will magically create jobs. Any reasonable person can see this because the writers of the initiative linked the law to the unemployment rate. If the assumption were true, why then are jobs in other States without pending emissions regulation not being created now?

Passing Prop. 23 means that Californians will once again reap the unintended consequences of poor law written by special interests. Maybe if the writers didn't use an historically low unemployment number and actually provided for some incentive to companies to create jobs I would have supported it. But they didn't. They don't have Californian's best interest at heart.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A Neighbor
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2010 at 8:51 am

I should have included a link to Gary Fazzino's comments, which actually came from here, and not where Jim found them:

Web Link

His comments came as part of a panel of experts regarding the financial and environmental impacts of Prop. 23. It was the informed responses of these panelists which has convinced me to vote no on Prop. 23.

It is time to think outside the box on energy. Drill, baby, drill can no longer be our mantra.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by 23 is YES
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2010 at 10:09 am

So Applied created 100s of thousands of jobs GLOBALY and 100s in CA ! ! The cloudy thinking of the zealots is scary. And 'government support can create jobs'...wrong. For the moment it's pouring billion into green startups (instead of venture stepping up) & the gov't is pouring water on drowning companies full of regular people. Fed has only helped PUBLIC union jobs, inner-city minorities, green dreamers & green elites. Whole field is so misguided & without facts. Just legislate & STOP energy & power from every source and further crush Americans & the US economy. Build those $100K Tesla's, when there's no clear power & NO power stations..just suck off the neighborhood sub-station & raise your neighbors elec costs. Continue with Markey's clean-coal farse, OK to kill dirty coal miners, but stop oil, & North American sans. And the HYPOCRISY of it all, stop all-clean nuclear expansion and the massive job creation that comes with it & recycle, reprocess & reuse...SO don't pretend for a minute it's about clean power..that is a lie ! It is about blind zealotry and control.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2010 at 10:25 am

"stop all-clean nuclear expansion"

Who said that? Where is that coming from?

"'government support can create jobs'...wrong ... nuclear expansion and the massive job creation that comes with it "

But the nuclear power industry enjoys a large government subsidy. Is that creating jobs? Get your story straight.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 26, 2010 at 11:00 am

Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy 23, aI will now point out the straw men from Stacey and neighbor

Jimf01 .. false assumption that businesses are not creating jobs because of government regulation and if we delay the implementation of the regulation, businesses will magically create jobs

Drill, baby, drill can no longer be our mantra

Neither of these things are what I said, and I am making no false assumptions.

The Prop 23 opponents cannot have an honest debate here


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 26, 2010 at 11:37 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Jimf01,

I didn't say you are making a false assumption. I said that Prop. 23 operates on a false assumption. I said that you are diverting attention from that fact with your talk about whether or not climate change is real. I assert that the subject of AB32 does not matter. The assumption you buy into is that jobs will be created in California by suspension of the regulation in question. So why doesn't it strip more regulation? Because the special interests that wrote it don't care about creating more jobs. They care about hindering a growing industry that will be in competition with them. So they sell you an illusion about job creation that you're more than happy to buy into.

Prop. 23 sets the bar way too high by using an unemployment number that has only been reached three times in the last 70 or so years as an index. It does nothing to provide incentive to companies to create jobs. The only people who will benefit from this law is the special interests that wrote it, not Californians.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A Neighbor
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2010 at 3:40 pm

Jim -- Notice that when I wrote "Drill, baby, drill can no longer be our mantra", I used the word OUR. I did not say YOUR. There was no intent on my part to suggest you said anything related to increasing drilling. It was merely a statement of my own opinion based on the US over-dependence on oil for energy.

It is not about you, Jim, and it never was. It was about the proposition, the actual subject of this thread.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by YES on 23
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2010 at 3:45 pm

Patriot, if you can't keep current with information in recent years, you don't deserve to be in the discussion. You're only interest is partisan politics, not doing what is best for the economy or the country...and that stacey pretty scary too.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 26, 2010 at 4:42 pm

Actually Stacey, you continue to distort the facts of prop 23, I expect more from you, you are usually straightforward and honest.

an unemployment number that has only been reached three times in the last 70 or so years
false, this data Web Link shows we have achieved this twice in the past 10 years, and for almost three full years between 1987 and 1990 and again for two years between mid 99 and mid 2001

So you accuse prop 23 backers of wanting to hinder the green economy, but what prop 23 opponents want to hinder with ab32 is the portion of the economy that drives nearly everything in the united states economy right now. Specifically, everything you use, touch, or own, is delivered on a truck, trucks run on fuel. There isn't a viable electric powered big rig out there.

Passing prop 23 would do nothing to hinder the development of such a truck, but hindering the economy of today, the economy that provides jobs today to speed the arrival of your utopian wonderland is simply wrongheaded at best, and extremely dangerous to the future of our country at worst.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 26, 2010 at 9:13 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Jimf01,

I wrote 70 years because I was trying to recall the fact offhand and I apologize for my failing memory. I realized the mistake after I posted and looked at the voter guide where it says "since 1970" (I got the 70 part right). The main point is that that number is a poor indicator. They set the bar way too high; set us up to FAIL. Look at the site you posted from the Bureau of Labor. Here's the graph of the unemployment rate since 1976 (the oldest year available) Web Link One can see from the graph (without doing the actual math) that a number like 7.5% looks average. If you want above average, the number would be closer to 6%. A number that approaches 5% is like asking the California labor market to get an A on every test. It is NOT going to get there just from suspending AB32. And that's why I take issue with Prop. 23 not providing any incentives to companies to create jobs.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 26, 2010 at 9:13 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

P.S. Trucks run on diesel.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2010 at 9:52 pm

To the prop 23 supporter,

You said:
" if you can't keep current with information in recent years"

What's not current? Nuclear power still enjoys a substantial government subsidy. Maybe you need a more recent article? Here's one from April 7, 2010.

Web Link

"You're only interest is partisan politics"

Partisan? I'm not Democrat or Republican. Where have I said anything partisan? I've said that I would vote for Meg Whitman. Maybe that's what you meant?

Maybe you didn't understand what I wrote above.

You said: "'government support can create jobs'...wrong "

Then you say: "...nuclear expansion and the massive job creation that comes with it "

But as the article says:

"Nuclear power is a swell technology but, given the high construction costs associated with building nuclear reactors, it's a technology that cannot compete in free markets without a massive amount of government support. If one believes in free markets, then one should look askance at such policies. "

It would help if you did your homework and not made baseless claims.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by YES on 23
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 26, 2010 at 10:53 pm

So Patriot, you'd rather talk about the massive costs of DIRTY MANUFACTURING for solar...and the UGLY, COSTLY, TOWERS that none of the 'pushers' are stepping up to pay to string new solar power lines zig-zagging all across America. So Obama has it in his budget for American grandchildren and chinese loans to bankroll....certainly NOT the Tesla elite don't intend to provide capital for their toys ! All this to blanket all vacant earth with ugly, expensive panels...just to provide SINGLE DIGIT power for another decade. All-clean nuclear at Diablo Canyon HAS been consistently PROVIDING 25 % of PGEs electricity for 30 YEARS....already proven itself ! ! ! and does it all on EXISTING power lines ! ! How can you defend the fantasy that won't get UP to nuclear's numbers in my lifetime ! Sinking more China debt on this obsessive carryover from the 80s..,and it still can't get up to 5 %. Join the 21 century and go hi tech ! One little nuclear plant can provide many times the power on a tiny fraction of the footprint. Several new plants would employ masses of workers. NO reason not to. Except for the luddites still hangin' out from the past.l


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2010 at 9:50 am

To the "YES" person,

I trying (hard) to make sense of what you posted.

I guess I can sum it up this way. You seem to have a problem when the government subsidizes solar power, but you don't have a problem when it subsidizes nuclear power. Did you read the last link I provided?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jimf01
a resident of another community
on Oct 27, 2010 at 11:01 am

Stacey - Thanks for acknowledging the facts.

Look at the chart and the analysis of prop 23

Web Link

The bar is not set too low, this chart illustrates how high unemployment went to very low unemployment in the period of a few years
Web Link

That is the main point of Prop 23, A yes vote will help cut unemployment in California.

Here is a summary:
Climate Change Regulatory Activities Would Be Suspended. Specifically, this proposition would likely suspend:

* The proposed cap–and–trade regulation discussed above.
* The "low carbon fuel standard" regulation that requires providers of transportation fuel in California (such as refiners and importers) to change the mix of fuels to lower GHG emissions.
* The proposed ARB regulation that is intended to require privately and publicly owned utilities and others who sell electricity to obtain at least 33 percent of their supply from "renewable" sources, such as solar or wind power, by 2020. (The current requirement that 20 percent of the electricity obtained by privately owned utilities come from renewable sources by 2010 would not be suspended by this proposition.)
* The fee to recover state agency costs of administering AB 32.

Much Regulation in the Scoping Plan Would Likely Continue. That is because certain regulations implement laws other than AB 32. The regulations that would likely move forward, for example, include:

* New vehicle emission standards for cars and smaller trucks.
* A program to encourage homeowners to install solar panels on their roofs.
* Land–use policies to promote less reliance on vehicle use.
* Building and appliance energy efficiency requirements.

This summary undercuts most of the argument you have presented for voting no on 23. The regulation in place outside of AB32 supports the green economy, such as the technologies that Applied Materials is devloping.
The suspension of AB32 still means that industry needs to prepare for AB32 and cap & trade, etc.
Vote YES on Prop 23 for California jobs and for a cleaner environment for the future of California


 +   Like this comment
Posted by YES on 23
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2010 at 1:02 pm

Thank you jmf01 for taking the time to properly explain to all.

.To the Pat guy.. can you not read what I've written. Nuclear has been proven and has provided PGE dependable all-clean, NO-carbon power for 30 years....it's earnedd it's right. No matter the Billions of tax $$ being poured into solar, since the 80s...it cannot seem to even get up to 6 or 7 %....how will it ever get up to provide double digits in our lifetime !!. If wishes could have made it happen it wouldd have.....but it's just NOT making it ! ! ..Good money after bad comes to mind !


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Maria
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2010 at 5:28 pm

My problem with Prop 23 is that I don't entirely agree with the correlation between unemployment and pollution regulation. Yes, there is unemployment--because we went through a recession!!
Personally, I'm more in favor of innovation than regulation-- giving incentives to companies to become more efficient in controlling emissions-- but the hard truth is that unless there is some impetus to increase efficiency, nothing will be done.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 27, 2010 at 5:36 pm

"Nuclear has been proven and has provided PGE dependable all-clean, NO-carbon power for 30 years....it's earnedd it's right. "

Did you not read what I wrote?

" ... it's a technology that cannot compete in free markets without a massive amount of government support. "

So then you're OK with "massive amount of government support" for a power source that provides "25%" versus "6 or 7%" of our power?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Duck!
By Tom Cushing | 25 comments | 1,310 views

The Giving Season
By Roz Rogoff | 3 comments | 918 views

Thanksgiving Transfer Fever!
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 504 views