Election Round-Up

I ended up not posting last night, because Obama’s win became too thrilling and non-environmental propositions became too heartbreaking.

But here is the final tally of the ballot measures across the country:

California:
Proposition 1A: Approved, 52.3%
Proposition 2: Approved, 63.3%
Proposition 7: Defeated, 65%
Proposition 10: Defeated, 59.9%

Colorado:
Amendment 58: Defeated, 58% (so many 58′s… too funny)

Georgia:
Amendment 1: Approved, 68%

Maine:
Question 3: too close to call

Minnesota:
HF 2285: Approved, 56%

Missouri:
Proposition C: Approved, 66%

Ohio:
Issue 2: Approved, 69%

Rhode Island:
Question 1: Approved, 76%
Question 2: Approved, 68%

California Propostion 10

This is the final ballot measure having something to do with the environment. Tomorrow, I will post a summary of the ballot measures. But remember, you can go to the link on the right hand side of the screen labeled “Election 2008″ and get all the information you need about ballot measures and candidates.

Proposition 10: California Alternative Fuels Inititative

It sets up a rebate program to give money back to people who purchase vehicles that are powered by fuel sources other than regular gasoline, as well as a rebate for people who buy fuel-saving vehicles (like the Toyota Prius). The state government would pay for the rebates, up to a total of $5 billion.

The initiative authorizes $5 billion in bonds paid from state’s General Fund, allocated approximately as follows:

* 58% in cash payments of between $2,000 and $50,000 to purchasers of certain high fuel economy and alternative fuel vehicles;
* 20% in incentives for research, development and production of renewable energy technology;
* 11% in incentives for research and development of alternative fuel vehicle technology;
* 5% in incentives for purchase of renewable energy technology;
* 4% in grants to eight cities for education about these technologies; and
* 3% in grants to colleges to train students in these technologies.

Argument FOR:
– The funding it provides will allow the generation of electricity from renewable sources, and provide consumer rebates for the purchase or lease of “clean alternative fuel vehicles”.
– The funding will allow the replacement of “older polluting diesel trucks with clean alternative fuel trucks” and provide for research into alternative fuels.
– The programs funded by Prop. 10 will help reduce dependence on foreign fuel produced by “hostile foreign governments.”
– The diesel trucks that could be replaced produce dangerous pollution.
– Alternatives to high-priced gasoline are important

Argument AGAINST:
– Would require taking $10 billion out of the state’s general fund over a 30 year period at a time when the state is already in debt.
– Average consumers would not benefit from the rebate created by Proposition 10 that goes to those who buy vehicles that run on non-petroleum based fuels; instead, critics say, the main beneficiaries of the rebate would be “companies that have large vehicle fleets.”
– There are relatively few mechanics who know how to fix natural-gas engines and few filling stations offer natural gas.
– The proposition was initiated by one person/interest group and as such lacks the vetting that would have come had it gained input from a wider variety of sources. Shames says, “A well-intentioned individual with an excessive amount of money doesn’t necessarily have the capacity to present a comprehensive policy initiative on a complex topic.”

Recommendation: NO

It comes down to this… natural gas vehicles can provide a moderate reduction in pollution contributing to global warming. But this measure is not worth the cost to the state. It legislates a market for natural gas, therefore adding pressure to drill, while diverting funds and research from other alternatives. It is no surprise that the major investor in the “yes” campaign, has the most to profit from such a move; T. Boone Pickens.

link to the website in FAVOR
link to the website in OPPOSITION

California Proposition 7

Continuing series on Election 2008 Propositions

Proposition 7: Renewable Energy Generation. Initiative Statute.

* Requires utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations.
* Raises requirement for utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025.
* Imposes penalties, subject to waiver, for noncompliance.
* Transfers some jurisdiction of regulatory matters from Public Utilities Commission to Energy Commission.
* Fast-tracks approval for new renewable energy plants.
* Requires utilities to sign longer contracts (20 year minimum) to procure renewable energy.
* Creates account to purchase rights-of-way and facilities for the transmission of renewable energy.

Fiscal Impact:
* Increased state administrative costs of up to $3.4 million annually for the regulatory activities of the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission, paid for by fee revenues.

* Unknown impact on state and local government costs and revenues due to the measure’s uncertain impact on retail electricity rates. In the short term, the prospects for higher rates – and therefore higher costs, lower sales and income tax revenues, and higher local utility tax revenues – are more likely. In the long term, the impact on electricity rates, and therefore state and local government costs and revenues, is unknown

Argument FOR:
– It would make California the world leader in clean power technology.
– It would help create over 370,000 new high wage jobs.
– It meets environmental protection standards as outlined in the Warren-Alquist Act and Desert Protection Act.
– Provides for review by local government.
– Will have no negative impact on small-scale renewables and will likely benefit small-scale renewables
– Provides a “feed-in tariff” for any size project, under which utilities must buy power offered by renewable energy companies that is cost-effective.
– Strengthens penalties for utility non-compliance by eliminating the current cap on penalties imposed by the Public Utilities Commission

Argument AGAINST:
– so poorly written that it could hurt the cause of renewable energy in the state.
– will force small wind and solar companies out of the market. It excludes renewable plants smaller than 30mw from counting towards the new requirements. Today, nearly 60% of contracts under California’s renewable requirements are with these small providers. Excluding small providers will eliminate a major source of clean power and thousands of jobs.
– contains a provision that virtually guarantees that electricity consumers will pay 10% above market rates for renewable power forever – even when the costs of solar and wind sources become more competitive. Nothing in the text of the initiative limits increases in electric bills to 3% as proponents claim.
– will cost consumers and taxpayers hundreds of millions per year in higher electric rates – a $300 increase per household per year. By eliminating competition from smaller renewable providers and creating a seller’s market that forces customers to pay 10% above market for renewable energy, Prop. 7 will increase costs to electricity consumers and taxpayers by hundreds of millions of dollars per year. That’s why the non-partisan Legislative Analyst cautions that “…the prospects for higher electricity rates are more likely in the short term…” and the initiative might “…also lead to higher long-run electricity rates.”
– will slam the brakes on renewable energy development. It locks into law many flaws that are currently stifling renewable power development in California and creates new roadblocks to renewable development. Prop. 7 arbitrarily shifts authority over the renewables market from the California Public Utilities Commission to the California Energy Commission, which could lead to significant delays, added bureaucracy and costly lawsuits.
– Prop. 7’s problems would be virtually impossible to fix. No changes can be made without another vote of the people or an unlikely 2/3 vote of the legislature.

My recommendation: NO

On the surface this proposition seems fantastic; making California the clean energy leader and new jobs. Who could argue with that? But, I tend to believe the hundreds of organizations against this measure that feel, yes, it is a great idea, but this measure needs to be written better. Under this measure, we may have more jobs, which would be good cause we would need more money to pay for our increased bills. I also am a supporter of small businesses and this slams the brakes on their expansion, giving all the power to utility companies that are not under any governmental regulation. I also think it says something when 3 leading newspapers are for the measure, while 40 newspapers are against.

Here are the websites:
FOR Prop 7
AGAINST Prop 7

California Proposition 2

To continue the series on State Propositions dealing with the environment and my recommendation.

Proposition 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals

If it passes, it will create a new state statute that prohibits the confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Voters in other states have voted to eliminate calf and pig crates, but Proposition 2 in California in 2008 is the first time voters will have been asked to eliminate the practice of confining chickens in battery (small, confining) cages.

* Imposes a misdemeanor penalty and a fine of up $1,000 or imprisonment in county jail for up to six months to those who have been found to violate the act.
* Bans dense confinement for egg-laying poultry, gestation crates for sows and veal crates for veal calves.

Argument FOR
– prevents cruelty to animals, since it is simply wrong to confine animals in tiny cages barely large enough for their bodies. To emphasize this argument, supporters of Prop 2 released a video on October 14 that according to the Los Angeles Times shows “egg-laying hens crammed into filthy cages, while, nearby, discarded birds are left to die in piles of corpses.”
– improves our health and food safety by requiring better conditions for animals.
– supports family farmers, who are driven out of business when factory farms cut corners and put profits ahead of animal welfare and our health.
– protects air and water and safeguards the environment.
– a reasonable and common-sense reform, which will take effect in 2015 and won’t be costly to implement.
– The price of cage-free eggs will go down.

Arguments AGAINST
– If it passes, egg supply will go down and egg prices will go up.
– Some egg farmers in California who already practice cage-free chicken farming are fearful that the ballot language is ambiguous and that their farming would also be subject to the provisions of the initiative.
– If chickens are not in cages, they are more vulnerable to attacks by predators, including other chickens;
– Veal grates and gestation crates for pigs are practically non-existent in California or are being voluntarily phased out this year.
– The initiative doesn’t require farmers to keep chickens outdoors. Battery cages have been banned in Europe effective 2012. Farmers making the transition there are not providing free range conditions for their chickens but are instead finding other ways to keep chickens in barns.
– The cost of producing eggs would increase by 20% or more.

My recommendation:

In my opinion, you should vote YES on this proposition. From what I can tell it not only ensures health and safety rules for the consumer, it supports family farms, it protects our air and water supply, but most importantly, it prevents animal cruelty. I do not believe the concerns raised by the opposition, in fact in many cases (i.e. increase in avian flu and salmonella) those myths have been negated by science.

The websites:
Support of Prop 2, HERE
Oppose Prop 2, HERE

California Prop 1A

I am going to dedicate some time to writing about the various propositions that have to deal with the environment. I will take one at a time, list the pros and the cons and make a recommendation. This is MY recommendation, it is my opinion, I don’t need chatter about how I am wrong.

Let’s begin:

Proposition 1A: Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century

Prop. 1A asks voters to approve the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds. This would partially fund a $40 billion, 800-mile high speed train under the supervision of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. The train would run between San Francisco and Los Angeles, with Anaheim, California, designated as the southern terminus of the initial segment of the high-speed train system. Estimates are that the train system would be completed in 2030, and that it would take passengers between San Francisco and Los Angeles in about 2 hours and 40 minutes.

$950 million of the bond proceeds would be available for capital projects on other passenger rail lines to provide connectivity to the high-speed train system and for capacity enhancements and safety improvements to those lines.

Argument FOR:
– It will reduce the reliance on foreign oil for California
– It is a “balanced transportation improvement package offering statewide benefits.”[15]
– The high speed train network proposed in the initiative will reduce highway traffic congestion without raising taxes.
– It will save commuters time and money.
– It will expand transportation options.
– It will remove 12 billion pounds of CO(2) emissions

Argument AGAINST:
– There is no guarantee the project will ever be completed.
– It is a political boondoggle and a waste of money.
– If politicians can’t fix the budget crisis, healthcare or the schools, why think they can build this project competently?
– Proposition 1 is a creature of special interests who are notorious for their cost overruns and stand to “make billions off this scam”.
– Existing transit systems should be expanded instead of starting from scratch

My recommendation: YES

California has in influx of people on a daily basis and there will come a time when we cannot all be on the road. We need to have a reliable method of transportation to get us places within the state, not just within the city. It reduces our dependency on oil… good. It reduces out CO2 emissions… good. It saves commuters time and money…. good. It creates jobs, boosts the economy and fights global warming. Is this not what we have been demanding from the possible president elect?

In the sake of being fair:
HERE is the link to the Vote Yes website
HERE is the link to the Vote No website

just inspiring

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvfexvihri8]

more on Prop 2

If you live in California, please vote YES on Propostition 2! Learn more HERE

And watch this video… kind of cute:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqPJsfjjyZU]