Boxer v. Fiorina, Brown v. Whitman, proposition 23: reading about November’s races, it’s clear that climate figures into key decisions the state’s going to make in a matter of months. It’s not clear the substance of climate policy will have anything to do with those decisions, but it’s worth taking a look.
I’m going to start doing a regular roundup of the week’s developments in climate politics. It seems like a good way to keep my head in the game.
This week’s pretty easy – two main developments:
The Field Poll released numbers on the propositions. Looks like voters are skeptical about Proposition 23, which would put AB 32 on hold until the state’s unemployment drops to 5.5% for 4 consecutive quarters (or, you know, until hell freezes over; keep in mind we’re around 12% right now, facing the prospect of a double dip).
PG&E – you know, the guys who wanted Prop 16 to win recently – has decided to oppose Proposition 23 – so, continues to support AB 32 moving forward as it has been.
Proposition 23 has been pretty consistently attacked by environmental groups who point out it’s supported by oil companies (bad timing with that spill), and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who issued a statement back in June about AB 32:
“This initiative sponsored by greedy Texas oil companies would cripple California’s fastest growing economic sector, reverse our renewable energy policy and decimate our environmental progress for the benefit of these oil companies’ profit margins. I will not allow this to happen on my watch. We will continue moving this state forward with our comprehensive energy policy that creates jobs, reduces our reliance on foreign oil and ensures the California we love will be the California we hand over to the next generation.”
Okay, so more next week.
