Proposition 39 opposition : "green energy" is not as green as it seems

Unfortunately Proposition 39 has flown under the radar and yet it may be one of the most dangerous Propositions on the ballot. It promises "green energy" jobs and "energy efficiency", but "green energy" is not as green as it seems.

In fact the billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer behind the Proposition has millions invested in Oil giant BP as well as hydraulic fracking companies. Steyer also spoke out recently at the DNC pushing the benefits of Natural Gas as a "clean energy" and a big part of our future.

It seems to me that A + B + C = hydraulic fracking in California.

Ironically the gaping loopholes in this Proposition to close a loophole make this Proposition one of the most environmentally destructives measures in the history of California.

Make no mistake this Proposition will bring fracking to California in a MAJOR way. Why do I think that? Because the Prop sets up a secret bureaucracy to deal with the 1 billion dollars plus raised and because the sponsor of the Prop has made it his mission to bring hydraulic fracking to his state. And there is nothing in this Proposition that spells out what clean energy is.

Steyer is a HUGE investor in Westport Innovations Inc., "which collectively announced an agreement last week to develop natural gas technologies for off-road equipment like mining trucks. Programs are already being developed for engines, combustion technology and fuel systems, and the companies expect commercial production to begin in about five years."

Here is what he said at the DNC convention recently: ..."We’re doubling fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. And domestic production of natural gas is at an all-time high—natural gas, which, if developed safely and responsibly, could help bridge our energy present to our energy future?"

Do you really trust a Goldman Sachs hedge-fund manager to safely develop fracking technologies? that's what this Proposition comes down to.

They are banking on the fact that you will be so enamored with the phrase "closing a corporate tax loophole" that you will overlook the part where there is no definition of "green energy" or "energy efficiency" thus special interests are free to interpret that phrase as they like in order to get a chunk of this giant pie.

Here is the conveniently ambiguous language of the Proposition: “Dedicate $550 million annually for five years from the initiative’s anticipated increase in revenue in order to fund projects that “create energy efficiency and clean energy jobs” in California.”

Who determines that? An unelected board beholden to special interests thats who. If you want to read more about Farallon Capital's terrible track record investing in very dirty energy click here link text.

Here are just some of the other arguments against this dangerous Proposition.

"Proposition 39 is a recipe for waste and corruption. It spends up to $22 million on a new bureaucracy and special interest commission. It gives Sacramento politicians a blank check to spend billions without real accountability or taxpayer protections against conflicts of interest."

"Here are the facts: a billionaire who CNN called 'California’s Hedge Fund King' is bankrolling 39, spending $20 million to influence your vote and buy the election. His political consultants use terms like 'closing a loophole' but don’t believe them. Prop. 39 is politics at its worst. California needs reform, not more taxes and wasteful spending."

"$2.5 billion that could go to schools, health and welfare, environmental protection or public safety is instead diverted to a new government commission with fat salaries and little accountability. Our state budget deficit today is nearly $16 billion and Prop. 39 makes things worse by wasting money on a new unnecessary bureaucracy".

Come join the fight against this deceptive Proposition on Facebook.link text

More like this:

Comments

Clearly you have not read Proposition 39. While the upfront language around clean energy is vague, the plan on how to spend the $1 billion gained by closing this corporate tax liability loophole is not.

Proposition 39 stipulates that $500 million be used undertake badly-needed energy efficiency retrofits of public buildings throughout the state, meaning schools and municipal properties. Using existing, out-of-the-box technology like new lighting, windows and insulation, these buildings will reduce their energy bill significantly, saving the municipalities and taxpayers in the long run. They have an extremely sound return on investment and will also create tens of thousands of jobs for the long suffering California construction industry that bids on and undertakes these retrofits.

Its also vital to note that the $500 million diverted to these projects is ONLY FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS. In 2018, all of the $1 billion will go to the State's general fund, rather than just half.

Whatever your feelings about Tom Steyer and his previous investments, to suggest that this money will be used as his personal pocketbook to bring fracking to California is just plain incorrect. There will be an oversight committee that determines where and how to make these energy efficiency retrofits (which school, what is needed). That money is not going to be vied over in the Legislature because it has a very specific destination.

And if you're are indeed pro-teachers and police officers, then giving the remaining half to the general fund for the first five years should make you happy since, as you know, And as you know, the general fund is the money we use to pay for our public schools.

Please correct this article to include the facts about Proposition 39. Whatever your personal feelings about ballot box budgeting, you are simply spreading misinformation at this point.

I know ALL about Prop 39...sounds like you have a financial stake in this proposition by your rhetoric.

"Energy efficiency" does NOT equal green. "retrofits" mean vinyl windows and siding. Do you understand the magnitude of the environmental impact of poly vinyl chlorides? they are BEYOND toxic...so toxic NYC passed a law outlawing the use of PVCs in govt buildings but here in CA we will subsidize the use of PVCs.

"Energy efficiency" is SUCH a dangerous term . Its used to demolish buildings and throw them into landfills, its used to subside toxic tech. Not to mention Im sure this will pay for mercury filled flourescent lightbulbs.

"An oversight committee"?! PUH---LEASE!!!! do you expect taxpayers to buy that.

Steyer is a FRAUD!!! Why does he have so much of his money in the Cayman Islands?

Why does he have so much invested in BP? Does someone who cares about the environment support BP?

Log in to comment

Skip Ad