Image: © Andy Gehrig
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
LOS ANGELES—It would seem that measures promoting renewable energy and alternative fuels would be shoo-ins here where gas prices are among the nation's highest. Two thirds of Californians polled say they want their state to be a leader in advancing technologies that reduce pollution and combat climate change.
But a pair of ambitious ballot initiatives—Proposition 7 (aka "Big Solar") and Proposition 10 ("Big Natural Gas")—designed to do just that appear to be in trouble because of growing fiscal concerns. Prop 7 would require utilities to procure half of their power from renewable resources by 2025 and Prop 10 calls for a $5-billion bond, with most of the money earmarked for rebates for consumers who purchase natural gas and other fuel-efficient cars.
California finds itself in one of its periodic political meltdowns. The powerful union representing state prison guards is pursuing a recall of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Business and good government groups, saying California's politics are broken, are calling for a constitutional convention. The governor and state legislature reached agreement on a budget for the current fiscal year that was more than two months late. And that budget is full of so many accounting gimmicks and so much borrowing that a deficit of several billion dollars could reappear before Christmas. The state treasurer publicly called it "the most irresponsible budget of the past half century." Privately, supporters of both energy initiatives say that widespread concern about the state's finances and government remains a serious obstacle to their chances of winning in November.
The legislature has record low approval ratings—15 percent in The Field Poll (a California opinion survey) last week, which is lower than Richard Nixon's state ratings when he resigned as president in 1974 in the wake of the Watergate scandal and the lowest rating for any elected official, group or organization in the history of the Field Poll. And voters are not much happier about the deluge of ballot measures they face each election cycle. Wary of unintended consequences, voters have approved just 30 percent of ballot initiatives offered this decade, the lowest approval rate since the 1950s, according to a recent study by the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles. Ballot initiatives were first made part of the state constitution in 1911.
"Voters have become more careful consumers when it comes to initiatives," says pollster Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California. "They recognize that special interests are a part of the initiative process... and they'll ask the 'yes' side to make the case—not necessarily for the generic idea, but why exactly this measure for this time for this thing."
It doesn't help that the chief backers of Prop 7 (Arizona billionaire Peter Sperling, son of John Sperling who founded the for-profit adult education institution, University of Phoenix) and Prop 10 (Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens) know more about energy than they do about California. Pickens's national profile gives Prop 10 better prospects, but both initiatives face uphill battles, in large part because their campaigns are on the wrong side of four rules of the state's initiative politics.
"Big Money" can't pass a measure, but Big Money can defeat a measure
Sperling and Pickens each have billions of dollars and can spend as much cash as they want. (There are no limits on donations to ballot measure campaigns). Ditto their opponents. But few measures, no matter how financially flush their campaigns, can survive an onslaught of negative advertising. And the “No on 7” campaign, funded by investor-owned utilities and other energy companies, has been flooding the airwaves with so many anti–Prop 7 spots that backers are being painted as the underdogs.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentVoters on initiatives need what legislators get: public hearings, expert testimony, amendments, reports, etc. The best project for such deliberative process is the National Initiative for Democracy, led by former Sen. Mike Gravel: http://Vote.org. Also http://healthydemocracyoregon.org/ and http://cirwa.org
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think Prop 7 is our last chance to do something great and do something big to solve the climate change crises and the need for energy independence. It doesn't seem like it will ever happen in the legislature... SB411 died and there is no talk of something else being offered. I think it will be great if it comes from the people. And all the energy experts are on Prop 7's side, and I would much rather listen to them then the utility companies who are raising my bill 16% and still relying on coal to power our lives. Yes on Prop 7!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this article would have greater merit if the author had taken the time to look at and report on the ballot measures. It's not so much about who has to pay, it's about who will profit. The fact that these are energy props is largely secondary. All of the details can be seen at http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe better story might be found by looking at the list of opponents to Prop 7. You will see that miamor1234's claim of support by "all the energy experts" is not true.
"Last chance"? Melodrama much?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to act as a nation to utilize every resource available to us to loosen the grip our dependence on foriegn oil has on us. Our economy is in a sorry state of affairs directly related to the high cost of fuel which affects everything from loss of jobs to a record loss of homes not to mention the rise in cost of all consumer goods. We have become so dependant on foreign oil that we have neglected to fully utilize such natural sources of energy such wind power & solar power. Along with modern technology such as plug in cars, hybrid cars, v2g technology ,and regenerative braking technology. We still seem to be floundering as a nation as to devising the best plan utilize all that is available to us and lift ourselves out of this mess we are in. We need to take our closest look at which candidates put our economy and energy crisis at the forefront of their agenda. The Manhattan Project of 2009 by Jeff Wilson pretty much says it all...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.themanhattanprojectof2009.com
Beyondgreen: you say that "We need to act as a nation to utilize every resource available to us to loosen the grip our dependence on foriegn oil has on us" and then you fail to mention the biggest energy resource available to us -- oil off the coast of California. Instead you claim we've "neglected wind and solar" when we haven't. We've subsidized the heck out of both of these technologies for decades and they still account for less than 2 percent of our energy BECAUSE they are costly and irratic. And both solar and wind require some other baseload energy generation to cover the gaps when the sun ain't shining and the wind isn't blowing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIgnoring the 98 percent of our energy resources in favor of the politically correct "2 percent" solution is exactly how we got into this mess. If we are truly serious about energy independence and lowering energy costs, we'll start drilling for more proven offshore oil now and augment those with new technologies as they become cost effective and economically feasible.
I think the real culprit is the propositions themselves. As a voter that is the first place I looked. Prop 7 would help people buy new vehicles. That is an expensive test with little garauntee of improvement to the totally energy conservation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomething that is much more effective is what has happened to gas prices. Allowing prices to rise has cause the largest decline in miles driven since they started keeping records and has pumped more money into alternative fuels. The current fiscal crisis California is experiencing has it's roots in Gray Davis's decision to keep electricity prices low by paying all our electric bills. Maybe if he had let them rise we would already have more green industry. We certainly would have more money to spend on Prop 10 now.
I think Scientific American should stop reporting financial limitiations as if they are seperate from ecological concerns. After all the word "ecology" was fashioned after the word "economy" to denote it's complex interworkings. So often they report, "we have all the technology to do this. All we need is the US to spend $70,000,0...." That always has economic impact. The economic impact is a feature, not a stumbling block.
I think we're all in favor of sensible solutions. I personally tend to agree more with beyondgreen and less so with Alex280zman - I think we really need a gigantic, serious, well considered, unilaterally (HA!) supported initiative akin to the Apollo Space Program or the Manhattan Project... deep, and broad in scope. But I think it's crucial that a) it be very well thought out by top academics and experts and have all the kinks worked out PRIOR to initiation, and b) NOT be some greed based scam or deception on ANYONE'S part. As to why I disagree with Alex280zman, the information I have (perhaps inaccurate - it's so difficult to tell these days) is that we don't HAVE all THAT much oil off our coast.. and that even if we began drilling now, it won't come online for quite a while and will still be insufficient for our colossal and gluttonous energy use (see http://www.postcarbon.org/) Should it be a COMPONENT of a comprehensive plan? Sure. As they say "everything" should be on the table. But it's true that we are essentially running OUT of oil and so we really need to address long TERM alternatives and begin developing those now. I guess the main thing is to engage everyone and to take the time and be willing to invest to do it properly and intelligently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving lived in California and Oregor for more than 30 years, my observation is that initiatives cover a multitude of sins which the legislature cannot or will not address. California's constitutional requirement of a 2/3 majority to pass anything is part of the problem of passing "sensible" law. This rule was enacted as a populist backlash in the early 20th c. to counter-act the abuses of farm & rail lobby.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA second thought, if "green" efforts are to be taken seriously then they need to be more than no-growth and anti-growth NIMBY (not in my back yard) spoilers. Sensible growth plans must match environmental concerns to job & income concerns rather than pander to knee-jerk reactions from either side of the proposition. Oregon & California - vanguards of anything "green" - have a justly deserved reputation for revealing a scope of legislative myopia, failure & incompetence in this regard.
Given the even ideological split in the state, perhaps the current state of affairs is a solution of a kind: while the State legistlature impotently gridlocks, municipalities and counties might raise bonds & taxes & apply local methods to solve their perceived issues.
In my own case, after more than 30 yrs I finally emigrated from California (& later Oregon). Another jurisdiction seems safer as the pace of legislation & initiatives overcomes tax receipts. The ambition of a volatile minority can only bankrupt the rest of us.