Category Archives: Electoral politics

San Luis Obispo Supervisor Candidate received money from Phillips 66

Repost from The Tribune, San Luis Obispo CA
[Editor: Significant quote: “Peschong — who has said he supports the Phillips 66 proposal — said Monday that if elected, he would not vote on the project. ‘I would recuse myself because that’s the right thing to do,’ he said in a phone interview.”  – RS]

Candidate John Peschong’s firm received money from Phillips 66

By Cynthia Lambert, September 26, 2016, 9:02PM

EARTHTALK: Where Do Vice President Candidates Pence & Kaine Stand on Environment?

Repost from Earthtalk

Where Do Vice President Candidates Pence & Kaine Stand on Environment?

By John McReynolds, 08/13/2016

Dear EarthTalkWhere do the Vice President choices for the upcoming Presidential election (Tim Kaine and Mike Pence) stand in terms of environmental track record and commitment?

Mitchell Finan, Butte, MT

Not surprisingly given the current political climate, the respective Vice Presidential candidates differ on most of the issues, including their policies on the environment and energy.

kaine pence sml 400x267 Where Do Vice President Candidates Pence & Kaine Stand on Environment?
The two Vice Presidential candidates (Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Mike Pence) could hardly be father apart on their respective stances on conservation, environment, energy and what to do about climate change. Credit: Joel Rivlin, Gage Skidmore

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton’s VP choice Tim Kaine has opposed big oil companies since his career as Virginia State Senator. He first endorsed a “25% renewables by 2025” goal back in 2007, and has continued his staunch support ever since. He has been a champion of diversifying America’s energy portfolio. “We’re not going to drill our way out of the long-term energy crisis facing this nation and the world… we can’t keep relying oil,” said Kaine back in 2008. He reinforced this position again in his 2012 Senate race by arguing against tax subsidies for major oil companies.

As far as environmental protection, he has not shown much of a track record in support or against. In May of 2013, he did vote affirmatively on a bill to protect ocean, coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV), which puts out an annual national environmental scorecard for politicians, has attributed a 91 percent lifetime score to Kaine, clearly naming him as one of our nation’s leading politicians. More recently, in late 2015, Kaine voted against a bill that attacked Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) carbon pollution limits. Of course, a Republican dominated Congress passed the bill anyway, although President Obama quickly vetoed it to maintain stricter limits on carbon pollution.

Across the aisle, Donald Trump’s VP selection, Mike Pence, lacks any sort of environmental agenda in his political career. The LCV gives him a lifetime score of only four percent, meaning he is no friend of the environment. Pence, who served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2001-2013 when he assumed the Indiana governorship, voted against a “Cash for Clunkers” recycling program in 2009 and also voted no on a bill improving public transportation in 2008. Meanwhile, he voted affirmatively for deauthorizing critical habitat zones and approving forest thinning projects in 2005 and 2003, respectively.

As for energy policy, Pence supported the “25% renewable energy…” goal in 2007 like his opponent Kaine. However, since then, he has supported offshore drilling, opposed EPA regulation of greenhouse gases and voted without any environmental conscience. He also voted against incentives for alternative fuels, for the construction of new oil refineries, and against criminalizing oil cartels such as OPEC.

“I think the science is very mixed on the subject of global warming,” Pence stated in 2009. His record of the environment since then reflects his continued skepticism toward environmental protection efforts.

For environmentalists, Kaine is the obvious choice over Pence, which is no surprise given the Presidential candidates who selected each of them as running mates. While Hillary Clinton may have focused more attention on other political issues over her career, she has continuously supported environmental protection and the transition away from fossil fuels, while Donald Trump has fought environmental restrictions on his ability to operate his real estate empire and recently told reporters he would consider reneging on U.S. commitments to reduce greenhouse gases made at the recent Paris climate summit.

On the Climate Crisis, It’s Donald Trump vs. the World

Repost from Inside Sources

On the Climate Crisis, It’s Donald Trump vs. the World

On the Climate Crisis, It’s Donald Trump vs. the World
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump waves a rally at The Palladium in Carmel, Ind., Monday, May 2, 2016. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy)

Donald Trump is many things, but we now know that in at least one area he would be a totally unique world leader if elected president: He would be the only leader of any nation to reject the science and dangers of climate change.

The Associated Press recently reported on a new study from the Sierra Club that reveals that every current world leader recognizes both the science of climate change and the dangers it poses to humanity.

Some have assumed that leaders of other nations around the world, including those countries most dependent on fossil fuels or with despotic leaders, hold similar views regarding climate denial and opposition to all climate action. But this study demonstrates that, from our closest allies like Canada, Japan and Germany, to the largest carbon emitters like India, China and Brazil, to the most fossil-fuel dependent states like Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, to countries as varied as Zimbabwe, North Korea and Fiji, the leaders of all nations accept the scientific consensus that man is fueling climate change by burning fossil fuels and are calling for urgent action.

America’s closest partners, like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, have said that “climate change will test our intelligence, our compassion and our will. But we are equal to that challenge.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who attended the Paris climate conference, said there: “This is a pivotal issue of our time. … We are one planet, and climate knows no bounds.”

Trump, in stark contrast, has made his views clear over the last few years. In his opinion, “the scientists are having a lot of fun.” Over the years, he’s described climate change as a “hoax,” “mythical,” “nonexistent” a “con job,” and “bulls- – -.”
He even said that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

In actual fact, NASA has made clear that “97 percent of climate scientists agree” on the fact that man is driving climate change by burning fossil fuels.

The Republican Party’s national leadership has long been a notable outlier in the global discussion and national debate on the climate crisis, climate science and the need for action. But it’s only now that we understand just how dangerously far out of step they and their new leader Donald Trump are on this critical issue.

Trump’s absurd position on climate change makes clear that his policies will not just harm the U.S. economy and businesses, but rejecting climate action would undermine America’s global leadership and influence around the world. The world is united as one behind climate action, and Trump’s promise to “cancel” the universal agreement reached in Paris while eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency would completely undermine our standing in the world community and our influence within key alliances.

While Trump claims he will negotiate “fantastic deals” with the rest of the world (think Atlantic City), the reality is that he is poised to undermine decades of progress this country and the world have made on climate action, environmental protection, and ensuring cleaner air to breathe and water to drink. The truth is that Donald Trump is toxic to our environment, noxious to our standing on the world stage.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton believes that “every child and every family in America deserves clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and a safe and healthy place to live.” She has and will be a leader on the international climate stage who will build upon our alliances and the progress made in Paris.

What is absolutely clear now is that anyone who cares about the future of humanity’s only home in the universe cannot afford to sit on the sidelines in 2016. We don’t have time to waste four years on the future of this planet. It’s not just all the progress we’ve made on climate action that’s on the line, it’s the health and safety of our families today and future generations to come.

That’s just one of the reasons you can be sure that the Sierra Club will be doing everything we can to elect Hillary Clinton the next president of the United States.

 

Western States Petroleum Association Continues to Top California Lobbying Expenses

Repost from CounterPunch

Western States Petroleum Association Continues to Top CA Lobbying Expenses

By Dan Bacher, August 19, 2016

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the most powerful corporate lobbying group in Sacramento, continued to dominate the lobbying spending in Sacramento in the second quarter of 2016.

“If you can count on anything, it’s WSPA (Western States Petroleum Association) throwing down some serious cash on lobbying,” said Stop Fooling California in their latest newsletter, the Crude Truth. “And this quarter was no exception.”

At the helm of WSPA is President Catherine Reheis-Boyd, former Chair of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called “marine protected areas in Southern California. The “marine protected areas” created under her “leadership” fail to protect the ocean from fracking, offshore oil drilling, oil spills, pollution, military testing, energy projects and all human impacts on the ocean other than sustainable fishing and gathering.

Reheis-Boyd, who continually pushes for the evisceration of California environmental laws and the expansion of fracking and offshore oil drilling in California, also served on the MLPA Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Forces for the Central Coast, North Central Coast and North Coast.

The group broke down some alarming Big Oil lobbying figures for the 2015-16 Legislation Session:

• WSPA ranks #1 among lobbying spenders this session, paying $2.2 million to KP Public Affairs, the top-grossing lobbying firm in California.

• WSPA has spent over $3 million so far in 2016, and $14 million since January 2015.

• Overall, the oil lobby has spent nearly $28 million to date in the 2015-16 legislative session.

“That’s an average of over $50,000 per day since January 1, 2015, and includes the $6.3 million in lobbying expenses reported so far in 2016 (over $1 million per month in 2016),” the group said. “If you’re into math, that translates into Big Oil spending $39 per asthmatic child in California to deny their right to breath clean air.”

• Chevron has spent $5.5 million so far in the 2015-16 session. Chevron ranks #5 among all lobbyists in the current session. “If there is any doubt that lobbying equals real influence, look no further than SB32, a bill setting a 40 percent emissions reduction target below 1990 levels by 2030, which may be punted into the next legislative session,” the group added.

For lobbying “its face off,” Stop Fooling California awarded WSPA their latest “Scummy” award.

WSPA and Big Oil wield their power in five major ways: through (1) lobbying; (2) campaign spending; (3) getting appointed to positions on and influencing regulatory panels; (4) creating Astroturf groups: and (5) working in collaboration with media.

Powering California: Big Oil teams up with LA Times

Stop Fooling California’s previous “Scummy” award went to “Powering California” for its new videos praising oil and attacking green energy.

“You may remember Powering California,” the group said. “It’s a front group of Occidental Petroleum’s spinoff company California Resources Corp. (yes, that’s complicated on purpose), which teamed up with the Los Angeles Times’ ‘content solutions’ team to spread industry propaganda last year.”

“Powering California is back, now with a series of videos, at the exact time California is debating critical legislation that will determine our climate future, in California and in other states,” Stop Fooling California said.

As Media Matters for America reported: “Powering California is out with a series of new videos praising oil and attacking clean energy sources. One of the videos baselessly asserts that ‘renewable energy can’t replace oil,’ falsely claims wind energy is ‘expensive,’ and bombastically declares that ‘oil and natural gas are woven into the fabric of America.’ Another video features feel-good man-on-the-street interviews with paid actors touting California’s oil and gas industry.” (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/07/25/party-conventions-big-oil-s-media-manipulation-strategy-full-display/211879)

Consumer Watchdog: Fossil fuel industry has donated $9.8 to Jerry Brown

Meanwhile, Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica-based consumer organization, on August 10 released an alarming report claiming that oil, gas and utilities gave $9.8 million to Governor Jerry Brown and his causes, often within days of winning big favors.

“The timing of energy industry donations around important legislation and key pro-industry amendments, as well as key regulatory decisions in which Brown personally intervened, raises troubling questions about whether quid pro quos are routine for this administration,” said consumer advocate Liza Tucker, author of the report, in a press release. “While Brown paints himself as a foe of fossil fuels, his Administration promoted reckless oil drilling, burning dirty natural gas to make electricity, and used old hands from industry and government, placed in key regulatory positions, to protect the fossil fuel-reliant energy industry.”

In spite of its reputation as a green state, California under Governor Jerry Brown is the third biggest oil state in the nation and a promoter of some of the most environmentally devastating policies in the country.

The Governor is promoting as his legacy the Delta Tunnels/California Water Fix, the most environmentally destructive public works project in California history that poses a huge threat to the ecosystems of the Sacramento, San Joaquin, Klamath and Trinity river systems. As Brown relentlessly pushes the tunnels plan, his administration is overseeing water policies that are driving winter run-Chinook salmon, Delta and longfin smelt and other species closer and closer to extinction.

Jerry Brown also oversaw the “completion” of faux “marine protected areas” under the privately funded Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative, overseen by the WSPA president and other corporate interests, in December 2012.

Brown has also promoted carbon trading and REDD policies that pose an enormous threat to Indigenous Peoples around the globe; has done nothing to stop clearcutting of forests by Sierra-Pacific and other timber companies; backs the weakening of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); presided over record water exports from the Delta in 2011; and oversaw massive fish kills of Sacramento splittail and other species in 2011.

Brown may spout “green” rhetoric when he flies off to climate conferences and issues proclamations about John Muir Day and Earth Day, but his actions and policies regarding fish, water and the environment are among the worst of any Governor in recent California history. That’s why to anybody familiar with the real record of Governor Jerry Brown, Consumer Watchdog’s “Dirty Hands” report is no surprise.

Dan Bacher is an environmental journalist in Sacramento. He can be reached at: Dan Bacher danielbacher@fishsniffer.com.

 

For safe and healthy communities…