cabak 819 txt

<div>ca819</div><div>
</div><div>new page 8/13</div><div>
</div><div>capt 819</div><div>
</div><div>all capt 616</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://insideclimatenews.org/news/28082018/california-100-percent-clean-energy-electricity-vote-climate-change-leadership-zero-carbon-electric-vehicles</div><div>
</div><div>In a move to solidify California's role as a world leader on climate action, state lawmakers voted this week to shift their state—the world's fifth-largest economy—to 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045.</div><div>
</div><div>The legislation now heads to Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature. Brown hasn't commented on it but is widely expected to sign the legislation as one of the crowning environmental achievements of his administration, which ends in January. The renewable energy commitment also comes on the cusp of a Global Climate Action Summit that Brown is hosting in San Francisco beginning Sept.12.</div><div>
</div><div>In a summer when California has been fighting record wildfires while facing off against the Trump administration's attempts to rollback climate policies, the state's Democratic-controlled legislature sought to double down on its commitment to shift away from fossil fuels.</div><div>
</div><div>"After a grueling year it has finally passed," tweeted state Sen. Kevin de León, the Los Angeles Democrat who sponsored the measure. De León, who is challenging fellow Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein for her U.S. Senate seat in November, was in the Assembly chamber on Tuesday to help round up the final votes needed for passage. The Senate approved the amendments on Wednesday and sent the legislation to the governor.</div><div>
</div><div>"Our state will remain a climate change leader," de León said.&nbsp; California already has one of the strongest clean energy mandates in the country, with a commitment to obtain 50 percent of its electricity from wind, solar and geothermal power by 2030. The legislation would increase that 2030 commitment to 60 percent, on the way to fully carbon-free electricity by 2045.</div><div>
</div><div>The state currently gets 29 percent of its power from renewables and 24 percent from hydropower and nuclear. A decade ago, only 11 percent of its power came from renewable energy.</div><div>
</div><div>The stakes are high as global temperatures rise. California's geography and long coastline put it in the path of some of the worst impacts of climate change, and a comprehensive climate assessment published earlier by the state this week projects that wildfire, drought, heat waves and floods will grow more frequent and severe.</div><div>
</div><div>What Would 100% Zero-Carbon Power Mean?</div><div>California would not be the first state to commit to carbon-free electricity; Hawaii set a 100 percent renewable energy goal in 2015. But as the most populous state and the fifth-largest economy in the world, California's decision would be a landmark in the global effort to drive down carbon emissions.</div><div>
</div><div>"While Trump is taking the nation backwards by deregulating and subsidizing the coal, oil, and natural gas industries in D.C., California is rolling up its sleeves to build bold climate protections," said Paul Cort, an attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice who led the California Right to Zero campaign.</div><div>
</div><div>"Victory for humankind and science-based 100 percent roadmaps," tweeted Stanford University professor Mark Jacobson, who has published studies on the feasibility of a global transition to all-renewable electricity.</div><div>
</div><div>As the bill made its way through the Legislature, Jacobson and his colleagues faced off against conservative critics like Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Studies, who warned in a Los Angeles Timeseditorial that the legislation would "require wrecking vast onshore and offshore territories with forests of wind turbines and sprawling solar projects." The Manhattan Institute has in the past received funding from the petrochemical billionaire Koch brothers and Exxon Foundation.</div><div>
</div><div>The carbon-free electricity commitment will also help California meet its ambitious goals of putting 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on its roads by 2025, and 5 million by 2030. Currently, even though California leads the nation in electric cars, those vehicles still draw power from a grid that gets 34 percent of its electricity from natural gas, its largest source, and 4 percent from coal. As recently as 2008, California obtained 46 percent of its power from natural gas and 11 percent from coal.</div><div>
</div><div>Leading Climate Charge as Trump Backpedals</div><div>The move to ramp up California's climate commitment comes as President Donald Trump's administration is pushing in the opposite direction.</div><div>
</div><div>In recent weeks, the Trump administration has proposed ending state obligations to decarbonize electricity under the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan and weakening fuel economy standards while revoking California's long-standing authority to establish its own greenhouse gas emissions standards and zero-emissions vehicle program.</div><div>
</div><div>The state is bracing to fight the Trump administration in the courts. Meanwhile, lawmakers in Sacramento are doing their part to push back on Trump's fossil-fuel-friendly agenda. In May, they approved legislation to require all new homes built in the state to have solar power. The state Senate is also considering a measure, already passed by the Assembly, that would trammel Trump's offshore oil drilling plans by banning construction of any new pipelines in state waters out to three miles offshore.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>"California keeps proving we know to invent a future few could even imagine," former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a letter urging lawmakers to pass the 100 percent carbon-free electricity legislation.</div><div>
</div><div>Former Vice President Al Gore also weighed in with his endorsement."While our federal leadership is failing to act to solve the climate crisis," he said in a letter, "it is imperative that California continue its world-renowned efforts to reduce global warming pollution and provide a blueprint for other states and nations on how to address climate change while continuing to grow your economy."</div><div>
</div><div>PUBLISHED UNDER:</div><div>CLEAN ENERGY</div><div>CLIMATE CHANGE SOLAR ENERGY WIND ENERGY GEOTHERMAL</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.ecowatch.com/fracking-california-public-lands-2594203156.html</div><div>
</div><div>Trump Moves to Open 1.6 Million Acres of California Public Lands to Fracking</div><div>
</div><div>The Trump administration took the first steps on Wednesday towards opening up 1.6 million acres of public land in California to fracking and oil drilling, The Sacramento Bee reported.</div><div>
</div><div>In a notice of intent published on the Federal Register Wednesday, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) said it would prepare an environmental impact statement on the use of fracking on 400,000 acres of public land and 1.2 million acres of mineral estate overseen by BLM in California counties including Fresno, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara, The Hill reported.</div><div>
</div><div>Concerned citizens have 30 days from Wednesday to comment on the proposal.</div><div>
</div><div>The move would lift a five-year moratorium on leasing federal land in California to oil companies, The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) said in a statement.</div><div>
</div><div>It also comes less than a week after the Trump administration proposed revoking California's waiver to set its own vehicle emissions standards under the Clean Air Act and just days after Trump blamed the state's environmental policies for the record-breaking wildfires it is currently battling.</div><div>
</div><div>"It's a coordinated attack on California by the Trump administration," CBD senior attorney Clare Lakewood told The Hill.</div><div>
</div><div>No federal lands in the state have been leased to oil companies since 2013, when a federal judge found that the BLM had leased land in Monterey County without fully considering the environmental impact of fracking.</div><div>
</div><div>Environmentalists are concerned that fracking can increase the risk of earthquakes and contaminate groundwater, The Sacramento Bee reported.</div><div>
</div><div>The later risk is increased in California, a 2015 report from the California Council on Science and Technology found, because fracking in the state happens in areas with shallow depths close to groundwater and uses an especially high amount of toxic chemicals, The CBD reported.</div><div>
</div><div>Residents of San Luis Obispo are even considering a ballot measure this November that would ban new fracking operations and oil wells in parts of the county that are unincorporated, though it would have no impact on what happens on federal land, The Sacramento Bee reported.</div><div>
</div><div>One of the key movers behind that initiative, Charles Varni of the Coalition to Protect San Luis Obispo County, told The Sacramento Bee that he was angered by the BLM's decision.</div><div>
</div><div>"We don't want to see any expansion of oil and gas extraction in San Luis Obispo County," he said. "We want to protect our groundwater resources for higher uses."</div><div>
</div><div>Earthjustice attorney Greg Loarie said that, while he was glad that the BLM was investigating the impacts of fracking, he thought such an investigation was a little beside the point.</div><div>
</div><div>"[A]nalyzing the impacts of fracking is like analyzing the impacts of smoking cigarettes: there's really no question that more fracking would be terrible for California," he said in the CBD statement.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;no maps</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-state-climate-change-assessment-20180827-story.html</div><div>
</div><div>Heat waves will grow more severe and persistent, shortening the lives of thousands of Californians. Wildfires will burn more of the state’s forests. The ocean will rise higher and faster, exposing California to billions in damage along the coast.</div><div>
</div><div>These are some of the threats California will face from climate change in coming decades, according to a new statewide assessment released Monday by the California Natural Resources Agency.</div><div>
</div><div>The projections come as Californians contend with destructive wildfires, brutal heat spells and record ocean temperatures that scientists say have the fingerprints of global warming.</div><div>
</div><div>“This year has been kind of a harbinger of potential problems to come,” said Daniel Cayan, a climate researcher at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and one of the scientists coordinating the report. “The number of extremes that we’ve seen is consistent with what model projections are pointing to, and they’re giving us an example of what we need to prepare for.”</div><div>
</div><div>State leaders vowed to act on the research, even as the Trump administration moves to unravel climate change regulations and allow more pollution from cars, trucks and coal-fired power plants.</div><div>
</div><div>“In California, facts and science still matter,” Gov. Jerry Brown said in a statement. “These findings are profoundly serious and will continue to guide us as we confront the apocalyptic threat of irreversible climate change.”</div><div>
</div><div>The state’s assessment draws on the latest science, including more than 40 new peer-reviewed studies, to project the effects of the continued rise in greenhouse gases on California’s weather, water, ecosystems and people and offer guidance on how officials across the state might adapt.</div><div>
</div><div>It’s the fourth such report since 2006, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ordered a climate change assessment as precursor to the Global Warming Solutions Act, the pioneering law California adopted that year to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels.</div><div>
</div><div>This latest one for the first time scales down global climate models to project climate’s effect at the regional level or smaller. That approach is intended to provide local officials on the ground with more relevant, community-level information they can use to prepare.</div><div>
</div><div>“The difference between the San Joaquin Valley and the nearby coastal or Sierra Nevada mountains is enormous, so we have to have ways to unpack the large-scale global model calculations,” Cayan said.</div><div>
</div><div>Rising temperatures, deadlier heat waves</div><div>California has already warmed 1 to 2 degrees since the beginning of the 20th century as a result of the human-caused buildup of greenhouse gases. That figure could rise to between 5.6 degrees and 8.8 degrees by 2100, depending on the amount and rate of pollution spewed into the atmosphere, according to the report.</div><div>
</div><div>Those climbing temperatures could cause 6,700 to 11,300 more heat-related deaths annually in California by midcentury, the assessment found. Such fatalities will dominate economic damage to the state from climate change, costing up to $50 billion a year by midcentury.</div><div>
</div><div>Scientists have long projected more intense and longer-lasting heat waves by midcentury but have observed those changes occurring faster than anticipated.</div><div>
</div><div>“Something that used to happen every 10 years is happening every year,” said Rupa Basu, chief of air and epidemiology for the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.</div><div>
</div><div>[pix]</div><div>Adding to the risks, scientists say, are trends toward higher humidity and warmer nights. Such conditions hinder people’s ability to recuperate and raise the likelihood of hospital and emergency room visits for a variety of illnesses, from heat stroke and dehydration to heart attacks, kidney disease, gastrointestinal illness and preterm births.</div><div>The report also highlights shortcomings in how authorities classify heat waves and alert the public.</div><div>
</div><div>In one study cited in the assessment, researchers identified 19 heat waves that landed more than 11,000 people in the hospital between 1999 and 2000. The National Weather Service issued heat advisories for just six of the events.</div><div>
</div><div>That led researchers to devise a new way of identifying heat spells that may fall below established temperature thresholds but pose similar health risks. Such episodes, called heat-health events, are defined not by temperature readings but on the public health effects they cause at the local level, particularly to the elderly, young children and other populations most prone to falling ill or dying from the heat.</div><div>
</div><div>Modeling by researchers found those health-threatening heat spells will become a persistent fixture in summer months within a few decades, lasting two weeks longer on average in the Central Valley by midcentury.</div><div>
</div><div>More air conditioning could attenuate some of the harm, at least for those who can afford it.</div><div>
</div><div>Somewhat counterintuitively, researchers expect the health damage from higher temperatures to be worse in coastal areas with historically milder climates, where people are less acclimated to extreme heat and fewer have air conditioning. Researchers have found heat-related deaths to be less common in hotter, inland regions where more people have air conditioning units in their homes.</div><div>
</div><div>Seas rise higher than anticipated</div><div>As the ocean continues to warm, California’s coast will face more beach erosion, flooding and storm damage.</div><div>
</div><div>Until recently, scientists and state policymakers worked with a projection that sea level rise by the end of this century could amount to about 5.48 feet in California under the worst case scenario. But the latest reports and state policies are now accounting for the extreme possibility that sea level rise could exceed 9 feet.</div><div>
</div><div>These broader projections incorporate the potential rapid melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet.</div><div>
</div><div>Even if the sea rose 6.56 feet rather than the higher possible extreme now adopted by the state, more than 250,000 residents, $38 billion in property and 1,400 miles of roads along the coast are at risk of flooding during a severe storm in Southern California, according to a study led by the U.S. Geological Survey.</div><div>
</div><div>Among the most vulnerable communities:</div><div>
</div><div>San Diego, Coronado, Imperial Beach and National City in San Diego County</div><div>Huntington Beach, Seal Beach and Newport Beach in Orange County</div><div>Long Beach, Los Angeles and Malibu in Los Angeles County</div><div>[map ani?]</div><div>Scientists modeled a 100-year flood — a severe but realistic storm that has a 1 in 100 chance of occurring in any given year this century — based on the latest climate science and sea level rise projections.</div><div>Almost all of those areas are at lower elevation and were built on former marshes, researchers said. San Diego County has the most wetlands prone to permanent flooding, and Ventura County is most prone to flooding of agricultural land.</div><div>
</div><div>Sea level projections are often presented at a global scale that’s too abstract, said the researchers, who hope their localized projections help the public better understand what’s really at stake when it comes to critical roadways and utilities, businesses and high-value properties.</div><div>
</div><div>“It highlights the urgency to act now and to manage the coast appropriately,” said Patrick Barnard, research director of the USGS Climate Impacts and Coastal Processes Team and a co-author of the study.</div><div>
</div><div>One such response is the creation of natural shoreline infrastructure, such as vegetated dunes, native oyster reefs or seagrass beds that help buffer wave action and hold back the encroaching sea, according to a report led by the Nature Conservancy....</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;At Surfers Point in Ventura County, officials turned an eroding parking lot and collapsing bike path into a cobble beach backed by vegetated dune. It has fended off erosion, widened the beach and become the most visited beach in Ventura County, the report said. During high wave conditions in the winter of 2015-16, no damage occurred at the project site: Wave run-up reached the bike path only where dunes were absent.</div><div>
</div><div>Other parts of the local shorelines were not so lucky: Ventura Pier was damaged in the storm and the Pierpoint neighborhood suffered inundation, the report said.</div><div>
</div><div>Water supply shifting</div><div>Northern California — the source of much of the state’s water supply — is likely to grow a bit wetter with climate change. But global warming will alter the timing and form of precipitation, making it tougher for the state to hold on to it.</div><div>
</div><div>Warmer temperatures mean mountains will get less snow and more rain and the state snowpack — nature’s reservoir — will melt earlier. That will shorten the season of high stream flows, giving water managers less time to capture the additional water.</div><div>
</div><div>Rising sea levels also will increase salinity levels in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the state’s main transfer point for Northern California supplies headed south. As a result, more freshwater must move through the delta to maintain water quality. And higher temperatures will drive up agricultural water use north of the delta.</div><div>
</div><div>Taken together, those effects could reduce delta exports to San Joaquin Valley agriculture and Southland cities by 10% by 2060, researchers found. The amount of water stored in key Northern California reservoirs at the end of the summer season could decline by a quarter.</div><div>
</div><div>“The good news is that we may have the same amount of water. But it may come in a different form and a different time,” said John Andrew, assistant deputy director of the Department of Water Resources. “We’re going to have to be a much better manager of the resource.'&nbsp; The water world has proposed various responses to expected shifts in California’s hydrology.</div><div>
</div><div>Those include modifying reservoir operating rules to allow dam managers to hold on to peak winter flows, which they must now sometimes release to create space for spring snowmelt. Floodwater could be used to recharge the San Joaquin Valley’s over-pumped groundwater basins. Existing reservoirs could be expanded and new ones built.</div><div>
</div><div>Southern California water agencies want to construct two massive tunnels under the delta to divert high flows from the Sacramento River and transport them to pumping operations that send supplies south. Water districts are also moving to develop more local resources, such as recycled water.</div><div>
</div><div>“Everybody has their favorite solution,” Andrew said. “[But] there is no favorite solution. It’s all of them in some amount.”</div><div>
</div><div>The study found that computer modeling showed a wetting trend in Northern California and part of Central California, while most of Central California and Southern California would experience a drying trend by 2060.</div><div>
</div><div>Another study released as part of the climate assessment found that, on average, annual precipitation was expected to increase in most parts of the state but that the projected changes were small compared to natural variability — California’s year-to-year precipitation levels swing up and down more than any other state in the lower 48.</div><div>
</div><div>More destructive wildfires</div><div>As rising temperatures drive more wildfire in California, the greatest increase is expected in the forests of the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade mountain ranges.</div><div>
</div><div>Forest area burned every year could more than double by the end of the century, according to research by UC Merced professor Anthony Westerling.</div><div>
</div><div>Climate change will have more of a wildfire effect in mountain forests in the northern two-thirds of the state than in other parts of fire-prone California because those regions are cooler and moister. When mountain regions grow hotter, soil and vegetation dries out more quickly in the summer, fostering conditions conducive to the spread of wildfire.&nbsp; &nbsp; Westerling modeled increases in fires of more than 1,000 acres based on two scenarios of global greenhouse gas emissions. Under one scenario, emissions peak and then begin to decline in midcentury. In the second, they continue to climb until late in the century. Under the first scenario, annual average burned forest in much of the Sierra increased by 48% by midcentury and by 120% by century’s end. Under the higher emissions scenario, burned area could surge by as much as 400% by century’s end.</div><div>
</div><div>In recent years, bark-beetle infestations killed more than 100 million drought-stressed trees in California. But contrary to conventional wisdom, the study found that in the near term, those dead trees would not significantly increase wildfire.</div><div>
</div><div>Westerling cited two reasons for that. When dead needles fall from trees within a few years of a fire, the risk of them fueling an intense blaze drops. And while the dieback is extensive, it is patchy and intermixed with green trees.</div><div>
</div><div>Decades from now, when beetle-killed trees fall, the heavy fuel load of downed logs and limbs could increase the risk of mass fires. But Westerling said the effects can’t be quantified because there is no historical analogue on which to base the models.</div><div>
</div><div>More air conditioning, but lower gas bills</div><div>Rising temperatures will increase demand for electricity across the state as more people install and use air conditioners — even in coastal areas where people have traditionally gone without them.</div><div>
</div><div>“If San Francisco with its pleasant coastal climate gets Fresno’s hot climate by end of century, even cool San Franciscans will install window units in existing apartments and new construction will be built with central air conditioning,” according to one study included in the state’s climate assessment.</div><div>
</div><div>UC Berkeley environmental economics professor Max Auffhammer, who authored the study that analyzed utility bills for households across the state, found a silver lining: increased electricity demand will be more than offset by reductions in natural gas use for heating as a result of milder winters.</div><div>
</div><div>“Electricity consumption is going to go up in the summer,” he said. “But it looks like climate change is going to save many California consumers a bunch of money on their heating bills in the winter."</div><div>
</div><div>[pix]</div><div>More air conditioning will place added strain on the electrical grid by increasing peak demand. To avoid blackouts, utilities will have to make costly upgrades, such as additional generating capacity, substations and energy storage facilities, to meet demand during hot months.</div><div>
</div><div>State energy officials said the assessment underscores the urgent need not only for swift global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions but also local actions to protect California from warming that’s already threatening people, natural resources and infrastructure.</div><div>
</div><div>“We’re seeing that in the fire situation, we’re seeing that in sea level rise, we’re seeing that in heat spells, in declining snowpack,” said California Energy Commission Chairman Robert Weisenmiller. “The climate is changing now so we need to be adapting our communities.”</div><div>
</div><div>Read the full assessment »</div><div>Read the state's summary of the assessment »</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>he and brodbent junket? --> 100 tanker tar sand oil? kpfa 818</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/reports/tanker-superhighway/</div><div>
</div><div>no lnx maps</div><div>
</div><div>Tar Sands Tanker Superhighway Threatens Pacific Coast Waters</div><div>
</div><div>Published: 06-26-2018</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Download: PDF&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Summary Results</div><div>
</div><div>The proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) would increase the number of oil tankers carrying tar sands from Vancouver, Canada through the Salish Sea and down the Pacific Coast of the U.S.</div><div>
</div><div>This report presents a map and analysis of 176 oil tanker and barge departures from the Westridge Marine Terminal in British Columbia from 2013 to the beginning of 2018.</div><div>
</div><div>Over half (94) of those departures then sailed the length of the Pacific Coast to the port of Long Beach, California, with significant numbers heading to destinations in Washington State (36), the San Francisco Bay Area (23), and various locations in Asia and Hawaii (17).</div><div>
</div><div>These results indicate that while the physical pipeline may stop at the water’s edge, a diluted bitumen spill remains a risk for coastal communities all along the Pacific Coast — from British Columbia to Washington to Oregon to California.</div><div>
</div><div>Studies have estimated a 10%-29% chance of a “worst case” tanker spill (>100,000 barrels) over the next 50 years.</div><div>
</div><div>The endangered Southern Resident orca population could be driven toward extinction by the increased ship noise, and risk of oil spills and ship strikes, resulting from TMEP.</div><div>
</div><div>Coastal communities that rely on fishing and tourism have suffered billions of dollars in economic damages following previous catastrophic marine oil spills.</div><div>
</div><div>The $60 billion coastal economy of Washington, Oregon and California currently supports over 150,000 jobs in commercial fishing and over 525,000 jobs in coastal tourism.</div><div>
</div><div>In the British Columbia Lower Mainland, industries that rely on a clean coastline employ more than 320,000 people. Studies have found that a major oil spill in Washington would cost $10.8 billion, and one in Vancouver would cost $1.2 billion (CAD).</div><div>
</div><div>Introduction</div><div>
</div><div>The existing Trans Mountain pipeline currently transports ~300,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd) from Alberta, Canada, to the Pacific Coast. A majority of this oil arrives to refineries in Washington State via the Puget Sound Pipeline, but around 9-27% reaches the Westridge Marine Terminal (WMT) in Burnaby, British Columbia, where it is loaded onto oil tankers and barges for transport to refineries and other locations along the Pacific Coast and across the Pacific to Asia.[1]</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) would expand the capacity of this system to 890,000 bpd,[2] and would increase the number of tankers leaving WMT by a factor of almost seven — from 5 per month to as many as 34 per month, or more than 400 a year.[3] Much of the oil transported by TMEP is expected to be diluted bitumen, or dilbit, extracted from Alberta’s tar sands.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>While any oil spill into water is harmful and extremely difficult to clean up, the unique properties of dilbit could make clean-up even more difficult than a conventional oil spill.[4] Furthermore, dilbit is one of the most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet, with total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions more than 30% higher than standard crude oil.[5] The tar sands are currently hampered by a lack of pipeline capacity and so the proposed construction of TMEP, Keystone XL and the Line 3 expansion pipelines could facilitate further investment in tar sands extraction and lead to greater global carbon emissions.[6]</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Numerous reports have warned of the threat to the waters of the Salish Sea in British Columbia and Washington, and the Pacific Coast from increased marine shipments of tar sands oil.[7][8][9] Research has shown that since 2010, the U.S. Oil refinery in Tacoma, WA has received ~20 shipments of tar sands oil per year (>1.5 million barrels per year) via articulated tug barge (ATB)[10] traveling from WMT.[11][12] Other reports have found that much of the tar sands leaving the WMT is shipped by tanker to refineries in California that have capacity to process heavy crude oil.[13]</div><div>
</div><div>Greenpeace and Mosquito Fleet activists block a Kinder Morgan barge from entering the company’s Seattle facility by locking themselves to the pier and displaying banners.</div><div>
</div><div>A movement to oppose the construction of TMEP has arisen, led by several First Nations who have emphasized their lack of consent for the project, inadequate consultation by the Canadian government, and violations of Indigenous sovereignty.[14] Recently, Trans Mountain pipeline owner Kinder Morgan reached a deal with the Canadian government to sell the existing pipeline for $4.5 billion (CAD) and build the TMEP. This deal allows Kinder Morgan to walk away but potentially leaves Canadian taxpayers on the hook for a troubled and controversial project.[15]</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>In this briefing, we present a visualization of 176 tar sands tanker (and some ATB) shipments leaving WMT from 2013 to 2018, showing the paths taken by those tankers down the Pacific Coast to refineries in the San Francisco and Long Beach areas.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Oil Tanker Traffic</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The goal of this report is to illustrate which areas are at risk from increased tanker traffic and which destinations have received oil shipments originating from WMT. Using ship location data from the Automatic Identification System (AIS), we were able to identify 176 departures from WMT from January 2013 to February 2018.[16] In Figure 1, we map the tracks taken by those 176 departures from WMT to their next destination.[17]</div><div>
</div><div>...</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>2016</div><div>
</div><div>https://ecology.iww.org/node/1679</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>crude awak</div><div>
</div><div>will parrish</div><div>
</div><div>In recent years, oil corporations have intensified their push to make the San Francisco Bay Area and other areas of the West Coast into international hubs for refining and shipping of one of the world's most carbon-intensive and polluting fuel sources: the Canadian tar sands.</div><div>
</div><div>In April, that long-standing effort spilled into Santa Rosa mailboxes. Constituents of 3rd District supervisor Shirlee Zane received a letter, addressed to Zane herself, from a group called Bay Area Refinery Workers.</div><div>
</div><div>"As a member of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District," the letter read, "you'll soon vote on a proposal that will impact our jobs, our refineries and the important work we do refining the cleanest gasoline in the world."</div><div>
</div><div>It asked that Zane "please remember that the Bay Area refineries provide more good-paying union jobs than any private sector employer in the region."</div><div>
</div><div>Twelve refinery employees provided signatures, but the letter was produced and mailed by an organization called the Committee for Industrial Safety, which is bankrolled by the oil giants Chevron, Shell, Tesoro and Phillips 66. According to state and federal records, each corporation annually provides the group between $100,000 and $200,000 to advocate on their behalf.</div><div>
</div><div>The letter's apparent aim was to influence Zane's upcoming vote on a little-known but potentially far-reaching Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulation called Refinery Rule 12-16 that's aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emmissions. If enacted, the measure would make the BAAQMD the nation's first regional air district to go beyond state and federal mandates in regulating refinery GHG emissions, the pollutants that fuel global climate change.</div><div>
</div><div>Zane is one of the BAAQMD's 24 directors, along with elected officials from nine Bay Area counties extending from Santa Clara in the South Bay to Sonoma and Napa. They will determine the measure's fate at a yet-to-be-scheduled meeting later this year.</div><div>
</div><div>Staff members at BAAQMD have proposed four alternative forms of Refinery Rule 12-16. But only one has the support of a coalition of environmental groups and the unions that represent refinery employees: a quantitative limit, or cap, on GHGs.</div><div>
</div><div>Processing the tar sands would dramatically increase greenhouse gas pollution at the refineries under the BAAQMD's jurisdiction, and advocates from groups like Oakland's Communities for a Better Environment (CBE), an environmental justice organization, say an emissions cap would turn back what they call the "tar sands invasion" from the San Francisco Bay Area.</div><div>
</div><div>Critics warn that without the cap, the oil industry will continue pursuing new tar sands infrastructure on the West Coast at a frenetic pace. "We've seen them come at us at a 10 times faster rate in the last few years," says CBE senior scientist and refinery expert Greg Karras. "Up and down the refinery belt, refineries are retooling for the tar sands and creating infrastructure for export of refined tar sands products overseas."</div><div>
</div><div>Experts have warned of the effects of a significantly expanded production of the tar sands—a sticky mixture of sand, clay and bitumen trapped deep beneath Canada's boreal forest. It would lock in dramatic increases in global temperatures and result in devastating impacts to ecosystems and human societies throughout the globe. A 2015 report in the journal Nature found that trillions of dollars' worth of known and extractable coal, oil and gas reserves (including nearly all remaining tar sands and all Arctic oil and gas) should remain in the ground if global temperatures are to be kept under the safety threshold of 2 degrees centigrade that's been agreed to by the world's nations at the Paris climate summit last year.</div><div>
</div><div>In an ecologically minded region like the Bay Area, an emissions cap to stop a dramatic increase in regional tar sands production (and tar sands exports from local ports) might seem like a political no-brainer. But staff and some members of BAAQMD say they are concerned that GHG emissions averted in the Bay Area would simply occur somewhere else, since the oil industry would increase production elsewhere. Doing so would render Refinery Rule 12-16 ineffectual in curbing climate pollution because other regions might not be so attentive.</div><div>
</div><div>Karras and other advocates believe the opposite is true. The cap offers local elected officials a rare opportunity, they say, to make a significant contribution to heading off the catastrophic impacts of global warming.</div><div>
</div><div>REFINERY ROW</div><div>The San Francisco Bay Area has been a core oil-refining area for over a century. In 1881, the Pacific Coast Oil Company opened California's first refinery on the island of Alameda. Pacific Coast Oil Company went on to become Chevron, rated by Forbes as the world's 16th wealthiest corporation.</div><div>
</div><div>In 2014, the Bay Area's five refineries, including Chevron's flagship Richmond facility, processed an average of 754,000 barrels of oil per day (45.5 percent of California's production total) into gasoline, jet fuel, propane and other products. California, in spite of its reputation as a haven for tree huggers, is the third leading oil producer among U.S. states, much of it exported to surrounding states.</div><div>
</div><div>The Bay Area refinery corridor in Contra Costa and Solano counties constitutes the country's second largest oil production center west of Houston. The largest is in Southern California, particularly the south Los Angeles areas of Wilmington and Carson, where the population is over 90 percent Latino, black, and Asian-Pacific Islander. Most people downwind of the Contra Costa and Solano refineries are also people of color.</div><div>
</div><div>As with the tar sands, some of California's petroleum sources—including the oil fields in Kern County—are much denser than more conventional, lighter forms of crude. California refineries have developed a unique capacity to refine heavy crudes.</div><div>
</div><div>A little over 8 percent of oil produced in the U.S. comes from the tar sands. Due to opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, however, the tar sands industry has been unable to expand its production in the Louisiana–Texas Gulf Coast. Without the pipeline, say industry experts, it's left to the West Coast to provide the infrastructure for the tar sands' specialized production requirements on a large scale.</div><div>
</div><div>"The tar sands are potentially very cheap, and a lot of refineries in California are already optimized to process it," says Joshua Axelrod, a policy analyst at the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC). Axelrod is a tar sands expert who co-authored a 2015 report called "West Coast Tar Sands Invasion."</div><div>
</div><div>Oil consumption in Central and Latin America is starting to outstrip production, another factor driving the tar sands industry's West Coast ambitions. California producers could make up the difference via shipments from nearby ports. The 2015 NRDC report concluded that West Coast tar sands refining could increase eightfold—from 100,000 barrels per day in 2013 to 800,000 over the next decade.</div><div>
</div><div>One argument in favor of the tar sands, repeated by most leaders of the Republican Party and some Democrats, is that greater tar sands production would wean the U.S. from oil sources in more politically hostile regions. Environmental advocates counter that the oil industry already receives more than $1.5 trillion in government subsidies, according to a 2015 International Monetary Fund study, that should instead be dedicated to low-carbon transportation and renewable energy.</div><div>
</div><div>OVER A BARREL</div><div>Growing public opposition has slowed the tar sands' entry into the U.S. in recent years, including the grassroots campaign largely responsible for convincing President Obama last year to veto the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline would have carried tar sands crude from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Indigenous people in Western Canada have played a decisive role in delaying two pipelines through British Columbia that would enable large-scale shipments to Washington and California via tanker, barge and train.</div><div>
</div><div>In 2013, Valero announced its intention to bring large volumes of tar sands crude oil into Los Angeles and the Bay Area by rail, and applied for permits to the South Coast Air Quality Management District and BAAQMD. The pipeline proposals were already in limbo, so the company saw railway shipments—up to 70,000 barrels a day, according to the company's permit application—as an alternative. Both the Bay Area and Southern California air districts have granted the permits; the Benicia City Council is set to make a ruling on the Bay Area spur of the project sometime this year.</div><div>
</div><div>Phillips 66 already receives a small volume of tar sands via an elaborate delivery system that involves a railroad line to Bakersfield, truck deliveries to a pumping station and a pipeline extending between its refineries in Santa Maria and Rodeo, with the latter processing it into jet fuel. The company now proposes new Southern and Northern California rail projects that would bring a far greater quantity of tar sands to each facility.</div><div>
</div><div>Other possible projects include a Bakersfield rail hub that would bring tar sands crude to existing California pipelines and rail-to-ship projects in Portland and Vancouver, Wash.</div><div>
</div><div>A coalition of environmentalists and refinery employees have opposed the oil industry's push to refine dirtier fuels. The tar sands are a major focus in their efforts, along with Bakken shale oil from North Dakota and other U.S. sources. Among the organizations are the Bay Area chapter of 350.org, the Sierra Club, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Richmond Progressive Alliance, CBE and Steelworkers Union Local 5 —which represents 80 percent of the workers at three refineries.</div><div>
</div><div>While climate change impacts are a major focus of this opposition, these groups also oppose the threat that increased tar sands refining poses to public health. Oil refineries have imposed an especially large pollution burden on the low-income people and people of color who have been disproportionately forced, by historical and economic circumstance, to live alongside them.</div><div>
</div><div>The same combustion processes that release climate pollution also emit toxic effluents that cause cancer and neurological damage, as well as particulate matter that penetrates lungs and clogs arteries, as the federal Environmental Protection Agency and state and regional air districts have acknowledged.</div><div>
</div><div>In a conversation at a restaurant on San Pablo Avenue in southeast Richmond, CBE community organizer Andrés Soto, who has lived downwind of Chevron for most of his life, described his community's struggles with cancer, autoimmune disorders and other health problems, and linked local struggles to eliminate pollution to the broader climate-change fight.</div><div>
</div><div>"You can either move and hope to get away from it, or you can try to fight back and try to help everybody's lives," Soto says. "And I'm not just talking about fighting for people in Richmond or Benicia or Martinez. Because of global warming, I'm talking about the whole planet."</div><div>
</div><div>This merging of climate change and environmental-justice activism solidified following a 2012 episode when a crack in a steel pipe at Chevron's Richmond refinery caused a fireball to ignite inside the facility. Nineteen workers escaped with their lives. For several hours, the flame was visible throughout the Bay Area. A toxic plume spread over Richmond and San Pablo, and prompted 15,000 residents to seek medical treatment.</div><div>
</div><div>In response, the BAAQMD proposed a set of refinery regulations geared toward monitoring refinery emissions and requiring further health studies. By 2014, the BAAQMD board of directors unanimously passed a resolution directing staff to "prepare a strategy to achieve further emissions reductions from petroleum refineries which shall include as a goal a 20 percent reduction in refinery emissions, or as much emissions reductions as are feasible."</div><div>
</div><div>Three years after the Chevron fire, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board pinpointed managerial negligence as one cause. But the main factor was the refinery's reliance on oil with high sulfur content, which caused rapid corrosion of the pipe. The tar sands contain even more toxic metals and chemicals than Chevron's existing crude sources, as well as higher concentration of sulfur, the BAAQMD notes, and thus threaten more frequent spills, fires and explosions.</div><div>
</div><div>Frustrated by BAAQMD staff members' slow progress, numerous environmental groups demanded last year that the agency impose a refinery-wide numerical cap on particulate matter and greenhouse gases. The tar sands are more carbon-intensive and more toxic to refine than conventional crude. Tar sand bitumen is heavy and takes more energy than conventional crude to refine into usable products. The refining process also leaves behind large quantities of petcoke, the only fossil fuel the EPA regards as dirtier than coal.</div><div>
</div><div>The 2015 "Tar Sands Invasion" report noted that tar sands oil production causes about three times the carbon pollution of conventional crude, and that 800,000 barrels per day of the sticky substance—the amount the oil industry is pushing to bring to California in the next decade—equals the annual emissions of 33.7 million vehicles.</div><div>
</div><div>Meanwhile, existing BAAQMD regulations have reduced smog, but have failed to reduce emissions of very fine, extremely small particles, which are greatly increased in tar sands refining. Particulate matter is already causing an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 deaths in the Bay Area—it's the region's most lethal pollutant. Refineries are the largest industrial source of GHGs and particulate matter pollution alike, with refined products—namely, gas and diesel burned in vehicles—being the biggest source overall.</div><div>
</div><div>Yet BAAQMD staff declined to include the particulate matter emissions-cap proposal as part of Refinery Rule 12-16. Instead, they proposed four possible means of regulating GHG pollution: a refinery-wide emissions cap; limits on GHG emissions from specific pieces of refinery equipment; restricting refinery emissions of methane; and a two-pronged regulatory structure like the one in Washington state that requires refineries either to increase their energy efficiency or reduce GHG emissions by a set amount by 2025.</div><div>
</div><div>At a June 1 BAAQMD committee meeting in San Francisco, executive officer Jack Broadbent acknowledged that three of the measures would take years to study and implement. The only option that could happen quickly is a cap.</div><div>
</div><div>But Broadbent and other BAAQMD staff members were strongly critical of the cap idea and asserted that they had no legal authority to implement it. Staff member Eric Stevenson said in an interview that the biggest flaw in the emissions-cap proposal is that it would "cause production to go somewhere else to meet the demand in California, so that you don't end up achieving an overall reduction in emissions."</div><div>
</div><div>About 50 proponents of an emissions cap attended the meeting and several said the BAAQMD should adopt all four of the proposals. Some noted that the cap would be a first step in meeting the air district's long-range goal of reducing regional GHG emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050. Refineries are responsible for roughly 15 percent of Bay Area GHGs.</div><div>
</div><div>"It's really absurd, in the truest sense of the word, that these folks from communities alongside refineries have to be here to implore you to not allow emissions to be going up in an era of declining emissions, and given what the air district's job is," said Jed Holtzman of 350 Bay Area. "Preventing an increase is part of reducing. If you know you're going the wrong way, then arguing about how fast you're going, or whether you know everything you could about your tires, is not a smart move, and it's not what you're here for."</div><div>
</div><div>Greg Karras has also expressed frustration with BAAQMD staff and noted in an interview that their proposals are disconnected from the refineries' tar sands push. "We can cap refinery emissions immediately to prevent a tar sands invasion from increasing them irreversibly and take the first step toward deeper emission cuts later by setting an interim goal for significant partial cuts of 20 percent," he says. "It is unfortunate, to use a polite term, that BAAQMD staff has aligned with the oil industry in fighting us to overturn the board's direction with respect to that critical first step—the emission caps."</div><div>
</div><div>The danger in addressing the tar sands threat, he says, is that "the oil industry's push to rebuild for even dirtier tar sands oil could be locked into place for another generation if we fail to act now."</div><div>
</div><div>One episode that validates the BAAQMD's authority to impose the cap, proponents say, took place in 2014. California attorney general Kamala Harris joined Richmond residents and environmental organizations in sharply criticizing plans for an expansion of Chevron's Richmond refinery. Harris supported a greenhouse gas cap as a condition of the project's approval.</div><div>
</div><div>TIP OF THE CAP</div><div>Ironically, one of the main bulwarks against the emissions cap so far has been the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the agency that implements California's climate change programs. In a letter to the BAAQMD last September, executive officer Richard Corey flatly stated that "a local cap on Bay Area refinery emissions will have no effect on overall GHG emissions . . . Any emissions reductions from a Bay Area refinery cap would likely be compensated by emissions increases (also called emissions leakage) in other parts of the state. This emissions leakage would likely be associated with shifts in business activity outside the Bay Area."</div><div>
</div><div>Corey's reasoning is tied to a state-level greenhouse gas reduction program that applies to stationary pollution sources like refineries and power plants: cap and trade. The program caps carbon emissions from these entities, with yearly reductions in allowable levels of pollution. From 2015 to 2020, for example, the cap is dropping by 3 percent per year.</div><div>
</div><div>But the program is aimed at providing maximum flexibility to the oil industry, so it allows them to buy credits, or offsets, from carbon-saving projects elsewhere in the United States, or in Quebec, or to sell credits themselves if they've reduced their own emissions.</div><div>
</div><div>Environmental-justice advocates have criticized the program for allowing polluters to buy their way out of reducing emissions at the source—and thereby allowing them to continue burdening communities with pollution. Chevron is a case in point. The company was California's second-largest greenhouse gas emitter in 2013, according to CARB data. But it was also the largest purchaser of offsets under the cap-and-trade program in its inaugural two years between 2013 and 2014, according to a recent study by the Oakland-based California Environmental Justice Alliance.</div><div>
</div><div>The company used forests in Maine, Michigan, South Carolina, Willits and Humboldt County—and an Arkansas-based project to destroy ozone-depleting substances—to offset its pollution, which mainly occurred in Richmond. As a result, its emissions were undiminished. If the company were to increase emissions through full-tilt tar sands processing, it could purchase additional credits. Another state program, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, also creates an incentive to reduce at-source refinery emissions but does not require it.</div><div>
</div><div>The proposed Bay Area emissions cap would have no trading component.</div><div>
</div><div>While some sources say that CARB may be reconsidering its stance, the oil industry's chief regional lobbying group, Western States Petroleum, has seized on the agency's current position. In a statement for this story, lobby president Catherine Reheis-Boyd noted that "if BAAQMD is considering a local greenhouse gas cap on refinery emissions, [Western States Petroleum] strongly encourages the District to take into account the California Air Resources Board's concerns. CARB has clearly stated that a local cap will: (1) not reduce statewide GHG emissions; (2) reduce cap-and-trade efficiencies; and (3) undermine statewide efforts to reduce GHGs."</div><div>
</div><div>Environmentalists describe these arguments as right-wing and defeatist. "Cap and trade is being used as a barrier to creating a simple limit on refinery pollution," Karras says. "Tell me if their argument doesn't sound a lot like what the Republicans are saying about why we shouldn't have a climate policy, which typically goes something like, 'China will just pollute more anyway, so we might as well get the economic benefits.'"</div><div>
</div><div>The NRDC's Axelrod agrees. Though his organization supports California's cap-and-trade program, he called the argument that emissions' "leakage" would result from a Bay Area refinery emissions cap "far-fetched."</div><div>
</div><div>"Fundamentally, it sounds like the same argument that happened with Keystone XL, which we labeled 'the inevitability argument,'" he says. "The oil industry's line was that if you reject Keystone XL, the amount of tar sands it would have facilitated would inevitably happen anyway. But that obviously hasn't been the case." Not yet at least.</div><div>
</div><div>Cap proponents note that any increases in Bay Area refinery production are likely for export.</div><div>
</div><div>One of the BAAQMD's most influential directors is Contra Costa County supervisor John Gioia, a fourth-term Democrat who represents the county's westernmost urban area, including Richmond. He serves as the Bay Area representative on the California Air Resources Board, a post he received from Gov. Jerry Brown.</div><div>
</div><div>Following the signing of the Paris climate change pact in December, whereby 195 countries pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, BAAQMD voted to convene a regional climate change summit this October. It will explore strategies for achieving a regional 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2050.</div><div>
</div><div>Gioia is taking a wait-and-see approach on Refinery Rule 12-16. "The main point is that we need to keep the pressure on to keep reducing criteria pollutants, toxic pollutants and greenhouse gases," he says. "Whatever the board ends up adopting will be the most far-reaching regulation at a local air district of greenhouse gas emissions and I think that's an important acknowledgment."</div><div>
</div><div>San Francisco County supervisor John Avelos is among the BAAQMD directors who unambiguously support the emissions cap. Los Altos city councilmember Jan Pepper has not publicly committed to voting for the cap, but said in an interview that she is motivated to prevent the tar sands from coming to the Bay Area. A version of the same Bay Area Refinery Workers letter sent to Zane's constituents also landed in mailboxes in Pepper's district, a fact that she "didn't appreciate, although it provided a teachable moment where I could communicate with my constituents who didn't already know about these issues."</div><div>
</div><div>The letter also went to BAAQMD directors' districts in Alameda and Contra Costa County districts. Steelworkers Union Local 5 organizer Mike Smith said his office had received numerous calls about the letter and that he was also upset by it. He noted the union's continued support for stronger refinery regulations.</div><div>
</div><div>"We're the first people affected by the emissions, whether they're from catastrophic failures or longer-term emissions," he says. "Our members are a part of these communities, and we want to have the cleanest and safest workplaces possible."</div><div>
</div><div>Sonoma County's other BAAQMD representative, Petaluma city councilmember Teresa Barrett, is also in wait-and-see mode. "I want to make sure that what we're doing is scientifically verifiable and really will get us to the outcome that we're looking for."</div><div>
</div><div>Napa County's lone BAAQMD delegate, 2nd District supervisor Brad Wagenknecht, takes a similar position and emphasizes the difficulty in navigating a regulatory process with the knowledge that the air board is likely to be sued no matter what it does, and calls for "both sides" to temper their criticism of the agency's work.</div><div>
</div><div>Zane did not respond to a request for comment.</div><div>
</div><div>The Committee for Industrial Safety's most recent disclosure statement with the California secretary of state lists Walt Gill, government affairs manager at Chevron, as the organization's president; Chevron attorney James Sutton is listed as treasurer. Neither Gill nor Sutton responded to requests for comment. Gill was among those who signed in as an attendee at the recent BAAQMD meeting.</div><div>
</div><div>Phillips 66 spokesperson Aimee M. Lohr confirmed that the Bay Area Refinery Workers letter came from the "Committee for Industrial Safety, sponsored by energy companies."</div><div>
</div><div>BIG OILED</div><div>The oil industry has been California's biggest spender on lobbying and elections for years, with much of their effort aimed at climate-change legislation, California secretary of state data reveals. California mandates GHG emissions reduction by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. Last year, the state moved beyond that goal with SB 350, which requires that 50 percent of electricity generation must come from renewable sources, and that energy efficiency of buildings double, both by 2030.</div><div>
</div><div>In the run-up to the adoption of SB 350, oil companies unleashed a gusher of cash. The industry spent more than $31 million lobbying California legislators in 2015, according to data on the California secretary of state website. The effort appeared to pay off, as moderate Democrats agreed to strip a provision from SB 350 that would have required a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use by California's cars and trucks by 2030.</div><div>
</div><div>Gioia says he has never seen anything quite like the industry's recent Bay Area Refinery Workers mailer. At the June 1 BAAQMD meeting, he noted that it has become well-known in Sacramento that the oil industry will attempt to pass legislation to limit the authority of local air districts if Refinery Rule 12-16 goes forward.</div><div>
</div><div>Proponents say that a regional refinery emissions cap will enable the BAAQMD to fulfill its role in a struggle to starve the tar sands beast, and to stand up to the power of the oil industry. In that way, the agency would fill a regulatory gap not addressed by state climate programs, such as cap and trade and the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard.</div><div>
</div><div>But proponents say the cap is also a pragmatic approach to the tar sands invasion the Bay Area faces. The full BAAQMD board of directors will hear a staff presentation on Refinery Rule 12-16 at a San Francisco meeting June 15. Expect it to be well-attended. "Oil refining is the largest industrial emitter of GHG and [particulate matter] in the Bay Area," reads a recent letter from 13 regional community groups who are tracking the tar sands invasion, "and yet refineries here have no facility-wide limits on these emissions, though other industries do. Keeping emissions from increasing would not require any change in current operations of any refinery."</div><div>
</div><div>Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s.</div><div>
</div><div>Tags:&nbsp;</div><div>Big Oil</div><div>CBE</div><div>APEN</div><div>Movement Generation</div><div>Sunflower Alliance</div><div>Bay Area</div><div>Bay Area Refinery Corridor Coalition</div><div>refineries</div><div>USW</div><div>Steelworkers Local 5</div><div>Steelworkers</div><div>Andres Soto</div><div>green unionism</div><div>BAAQMD</div><div>Just Transition</div><div></div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>our hizzy 2x one day</div><div>
</div><div>Trump Moves to Open 1.6 Million Acres of California Public Lands to Fracking</div><div>
</div><div>The Trump administration took the first steps on Wednesday towards opening up 1.6 million acres of public land in California to fracking and oil drilling, The Sacramento Bee reported.</div><div>
</div><div>In a notice of intent published on the Federal Register Wednesday, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) said it would prepare an environmental impact statement on the use of fracking on 400,000 acres of public land and 1.2 million acres of mineral estate overseen by BLM in California counties including Fresno, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara, The Hill reported.</div><div>
</div><div>Concerned citizens have 30 days from Wednesday to comment on the proposal.</div><div>
</div><div>The move would lift a five-year moratorium on leasing federal land in California to oil companies, The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) said in a statement.</div><div>
</div><div>It also comes less than a week after the Trump administration proposed revoking California's waiver to set its own vehicle emissions standards under the Clean Air Act and just days after Trump blamed the state's environmental policies for the record-breaking wildfires it is currently battling.</div><div>
</div><div>"It's a coordinated attack on California by the Trump administration," CBD senior attorney Clare Lakewood told The Hill.</div><div>
</div><div>No federal lands in the state have been leased to oil companies since 2013, when a federal judge found that the BLM had leased land in Monterey County without fully considering the environmental impact of fracking.</div><div>
</div><div>Environmentalists are concerned that fracking can increase the risk of earthquakes and contaminate groundwater, The Sacramento Bee reported.</div><div>
</div><div>The later risk is increased in California, a 2015 report from the California Council on Science and Technology found, because fracking in the state happens in areas with shallow depths close to groundwater and uses an especially high amount of toxic chemicals, The CBD reported.</div><div>
</div><div>Residents of San Luis Obispo are even considering a ballot measure this November that would ban new fracking operations and oil wells in parts of the county that are unincorporated, though it would have no impact on what happens on federal land, The Sacramento Bee reported.</div><div>
</div><div>One of the key movers behind that initiative, Charles Varni of the Coalition to Protect San Luis Obispo County, told The Sacramento Bee that he was angered by the BLM's decision.</div><div>
</div><div>"We don't want to see any expansion of oil and gas extraction in San Luis Obispo County," he said. "We want to protect our groundwater resources for higher uses."</div><div>
</div><div>Earthjustice attorney Greg Loarie said that, while he was glad that the BLM was investigating the impacts of fracking, he thought such an investigation was a little beside the point.</div><div>
</div><div>"[A]nalyzing the impacts of fracking is like analyzing the impacts of smoking cigarettes: there's really no question that more fracking would be terrible for California," he said in the CBD statement.</div><div>
</div><div>RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB</div><div>Newly Elected President of Mexico to Ban Fracking ›</div><div>Second Controversial Fracked Gas Pipeline Runs Into Legal Trouble ›</div><div>Trump officials open door to fracking in California ›</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-admin-takes-advantage-of-california-fires-2594248442.html</div><div>
</div><div>Trump Admin. Takes Advantage of California Fires to Funnel More Water From Endangered Fish to Agriculture, Critics Say</div><div>The Commerce Department seemed to take its direction from President Donald Trump's Twitter account on Wednesday when it issued a directive to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to prioritize fighting wildfires over protecting endangered species when allocating California's water resources, The Huffington Post reported.</div><div>
</div><div>The directive comes days after Trump tweeted blaming California's raging wildfires on "bad environmental laws which aren't allowing massive amount of readily available water to be properly utilized."</div><div>
</div><div>Firefighters disagreed with Trump's assessment.</div><div>
</div><div>"We have plenty of water to fight these wildfires," Deputy Chief of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Scott McLean told The Huffington Post on Monday. "It is our changing climate that is leading to more severe and destructive fires."</div><div>
</div><div>But that didn't stop Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross from using an emergency provision of the Endangered Species Act to direct water towards the fires.</div><div>
</div><div>"Today, I direct NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service to make clear to all its Federal agency partners that the protection of life and property takes precedence over any current agreements regarding the use of water in the areas of California affected by wildfires," Ross wrote.</div><div>
</div><div>Environmentalists are concerned this move isn't about the fires at all, but rather an attempt to use the disaster to intervene in a longstanding disagreement between agriculture, the fishing industry and environmentalists over whether more water should be used to irrigate crops or should be left in rivers to preserve fish species like delta smelt and Chinook salmon.</div><div>
</div><div>Ross's directive comes one month after the California Water Resources Control Board proposed diverting less water towards cities and farms in an attempt to save the two endangered species.</div><div>
</div><div>"Secretary Ross's directive is nothing more than a smokescreen designed to weaken these protections that NMFS's scientists determined are necessary to keep these native fish from going extinct. It's almost like the extinction of these creatures is their real goal, so that they no longer have to leave any water in rivers, but can divert it all to corporate agribusiness. The people of California won't stand for Trump destroying our precious resources to line the pockets of his corporate buddies," senior director of the water division for the Natural Resources Defense Council Kate Poole said in a statement reported by ABC News.</div><div>
</div><div>Around 80 percent of all water in California currently goes to agriculture, according to The Huffington Post, but, for Trump allies in the state like Republican Congressman Devin Nunes, that is not enough.</div><div>
</div><div>Nunes even went so far as to blame the drought that devastated California from 2011 to 2017 on a misallocation of water resources.</div><div>
</div><div>"There was plenty of water," he told The New York Times in 2014, according to The Huffington Post. "This has nothing to do with drought. They can blame global warming all they want, but this is about mathematics and engineering."</div><div>
</div><div>Meanwhile, another department head also seemed to take his cue on the wildfires from a different argument in the same Trump tweet, in which the president said the state "must also tree clear to stop fire from spreading!"</div><div>
</div><div>On Wednesday, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke wrote an opinion piece for USA Today in which he blamed the fires in part on a buildup of fuels in forests.</div><div>
</div><div>He called for more active forest management through logging, controlled burns and "mechanical thinning" and blamed environmentalists for preventing this kind of action.</div><div>
</div><div>"Yet, when action comes, and we try to thin forests of dead and dying timber, or we try to sustainably harvest timber from dense and fire-prone areas, we are attacked with frivolous litigation from radical environmentalists who would rather see forests and communities burn than see a logger in the woods," he wrote.</div><div>
</div><div>However, his OpEd doesn't appear to signal any imminent policy change, ABC News reported.</div><div>
</div><div>Zinke issued a directive last year calling on land managers to be more "aggressive" in clearing dead trees or brush, but Interior Department spokesperson Heather Swift told ABC News that there were no changes in the works this year.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>&nbsp;Calif. — Californians are stunned at President Donald’s Trump’s latest tweets on the state‘s catastrophic wildfires — and his insistence that the state is burning because leaders are letting too much fresh water flow into the Pacific Ocean.</div><div>
</div><div>Trump tweeted Monday that California “Governor Jerry Brown must allow the Free Flow of the vast amounts of water coming from the North and foolishly being diverted into the Pacific Ocean. Can be used for fires, farming and everything else. Think of California with plenty of Water - Nice! Fast Federal govt. approvals.”</div><div>
</div><div>That tweet — on the heels of a Sunday tweet that referenced California’s “bad environmental laws” as a cause of the state’s current raging wildfires — drew an immediate reaction from veteran California GOP strategist Rob Stutzman, who responded via Twitter: “This is nuts’’ and also “low water IQ.” Stutzman has advised former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and a host of national and state GOP candidates.</div><div>
</div><div>@realDonaldTrump</div><div>&nbsp;California wildfires are being magnified & made so much worse by the bad environmental laws which aren’t allowing massive amounts of readily available water to be properly utilized. It is being diverted into the Pacific Ocean. Must also tree clear to stop fire from spreading!</div><div>
</div><div>2:53 PM - Aug 6, 2018</div><div>57.5K</div><div>36.6K people are talking about this</div><div>
</div><div>Trump’s comments may be referencing an unrelated dispute between Brown's administration and California Republicans over how much of the state's water can be diverted to Southern California farms and cities and how much must be allowed to flow naturally to benefit endangered and threatened fish species.</div><div>
</div><div>Wildfires around California have killed nine people, but firefighters have not raised concerns about the available water supplies.</div><div>
</div><div>“The notion that somehow more water would be mitigating or better in fighting these fires is just mind-boggling,’’ Stutzman told POLITICO on Monday. “I don’t watch 'Fox & Friends,' but it would seem that someone has put the idea in his head. It doesn’t even show an elementary understanding of water policy.’’</div><div>
</div><div>Fox & Friends had aired a segment about the California fires nearly five hours before Trump‘s Monday tweet but didn’t discuss water issues as part of the segment.</div><div>
</div><div>Stutzman called the president’s recent tweets on California fires and water policy “frightening,” saying that “water has nothing to do with why these places are tinder boxes. It’s very exasperating. ... It’s a statement from the president that shows no understanding of hydrology.”</div><div>
</div><div>He said he would advise Brown, a Democrat, to “not take the bait” and react to such uninformed views.</div><div>
</div><div>Indeed, Evan Westrup, the spokesman for Brown, told POLITICO that “this does not merit a response.” But he also added via email: “It’s a sad state of affairs when journalism is reduced to chasing the uninformed, unsupervised tweets of the president.”</div><div>
</div><div>Some Democrats seized on the latest tweet. Rhys Williams, spokesman for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom, tweeted: “Has anybody seen the baby’s pacifier? He dropped it again.”</div><div>
</div><div>Donald Trump is pictured. | AP Photo&nbsp;</div><div>Trump endorses Kobach for Kansas governor]</div><div>
</div><div>In a purely political sense, Trump’s tweets reflected his alignment with California Republicans who have long complained that the state unfairly prioritizes environmental uses for water over the state’s sprawling agricultural industry. Putting “fish over farms” is a popular formulation that has been invoked by Trump allies from California’s agricultural heartland, such as Reps. Devin Nunes and Kevin McCarthy.</div><div>
</div><div>“Forests should be managed properly and water should be allowed for farmers to grow food to feed people,” Nunes wrote on Twitter in response to Trump’s Sunday tweet, cheering the president "for bringing much needed attention to our flawed environmental policies!"</div><div>
</div><div>Trump has courted the Republican-leaning Farm Bureau heavily. California’s water wars are a huge issue for the group. Trump addressed the annual Farm Bureau convention in January, becoming the first president in more than two decades to do so. He also raised the issue during a campaign stop in Fresno in 2016.</div><div>
</div><div>But experts who make their living studying California’s water system reacted for the second consecutive day with a communal groan of exasperation. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute, one of the state’s foremost experts on how the state manages its water, issued a tweet calling Trump’s latest missive “nuts” after labeling the president’s initial tweet “gobbledygook bullsh--.”</div><div>
</div><div>In an email to POLITICO, Gleick noted that the water that flows from California’s rivers into the ocean is what remains after cities and farms take their gulp — and that those flows are critical to shoring up ecosystems that, in some parts of the state, are teetering on the brink of collapse.</div><div>
</div><div>“Trump's tweets last night and today show a profound misunderstanding about water, fires, California environmental policy, and of course, climate change,” Gleick said, adding that the “idea that somehow state water policies are leading to a shortage of water for fighting the fires is too stupid to rebut.”</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div></div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.democracynow.org/2018/7/25/trumps_war_on_the_environment_from</div><div>
</div><div>While climate change denier Scott Pruitt has been ousted as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency over a slew of corruption scandals and his close ties to industry lobbyists, the Trump administration’s war on the environment and environmental regulations continues unabated. For more on the government’s attacks on public land protections and key regulations like California’s fuel emissions standards, we speak with Kierán Suckling, executive director and a founder of the Center for Biological Diversity.</div><div>
</div><div>...</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.kqed.org/science/1927220/california-cap-and-trade-is-working-for-other-states</div><div>
</div><div>no lnx</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;new report indicates California's much-heralded carbon trading program may actually be harming the neighborhoods it was designed to protect.</div><div>
</div><div>Checking the Math On Cap And Trade, Some Experts Say It’s Not Adding Up</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>In the first study examining social disparities in California's cap-and-trade program, researchers found that 52 percent of companies regulated by the program saw an increase in annual average greenhouse gas emissions — and those companies are largely situated in disadvantaged communities, historically hit hardest by environmental pollution.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>"The communities that live on the fence line near these industries saw hope in the [cap-and-trade program] that emissions might be reduced," Lara Cushing, the study’s lead author, said in a statement. "But so far, we haven't seen the kind of environmental equity benefits people were hoping for."</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The study, published in PLOS Medicine, looked at the first three years of the program, first launched in 2013.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>California boasts the world's fourth-largest carbon-trading program, which was developed to help the the state meet its ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets.</div><div>
</div><div>The program caps the total amount of emissions in the state but companies can increase their emissions by purchasing pollution “allowances” from companies that pollute less.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>So while the program succeeded in lowering overall emissions statewide, the study found that specific industries actually produced more emissions since the program was launched.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Proposition 70: Voters Reject New Constraints on State's Climate Revenue Spending</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Cement plants saw the highest increase in emissions, or 75 percent,&nbsp; followed by electricity generators, and the oil and gas industry.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The increased emissions fell on neighborhoods with higher proportions of people of color and low-income residents, according the recent study.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Yet, the carbon trade program was partly intended to mitigate the disproportionate impact of air pollution in these communities. California law requires 25 percent of the program's revenue to be invested in environmental measures that benefit vulnerable neighborhoods.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>But Cushing and other researchers found that most of the program's revenue stream is actually flowing out of the state, due to the way the program is designed.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Under the program, companies can offset their emissions by purchasing credits through forestry or agriculture projects, including those in other states. Rather than investing in local green projects, the study found that 75 percent of those credits — which are part of a regulatory scheme paid for by California taxpayers — went towards projects outside of California.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Cap-and-Trade: Cockamamie Plan or Capital Idea?</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>“Good climate policy is good for environmental justice,” said Cushing. “What we’ve seen from our study is that so far, California’s cap-and-trade program hasn’t really delivered on that potential.”</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Still, Cushing says that California should be praised for its ambitious climate goals. She points to the state's urban greening program that funds forests and greenways in vulnerable communities.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Additional measures may be needed, according to Cushing, to ensure that California's cap-and-trade program lives up to its potential.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>"Placing geographic restrictions on trading and limiting the amount of pollution 'offset' credits that companies can use to comply with the program could help incentivize local emissions reductions."</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>CA got ass kicked</div><div>
</div><div>new frontier in the #sodatax war is emerging along the west coast. Industry-funded committees have drawn up ballot measures to preempt voters’ local soda tax initiatives in California, Oregon, and Washington state. https://buff.ly/2KsyOcC&nbsp; #CALeg #orpol #waleg</div><div></div><div></div><div>
</div><div>many ICN see courts 2 etc</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>federal judge in California has dismissed lawsuits by San Francisco and Oakland that sought to hold the fossil fuel industry financially responsible for the global warming damages related to rising sea levels.</div><div>
</div><div>Even though he called the dangers of climate change "very real" and noted that fossil fuel companies did not dispute that the burning of their products causes it, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup said the issue should be handled by Congress and by treaty, not in a federal liability lawsuit.</div><div>
</div><div>"The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case," Alsup wrote in a 16-page opinion issued Monday.</div><div>
</div><div>While the ruling gave the fossil fuel companies what they wanted in this case, it's just one of several similar lawsuits brought by U.S. cities and counties. Alsup's ruling put the other cases in the spotlight, especially those before&nbsp; California state courts, where the law is friendlier to municipal plaintiffs.</div><div>
</div><div>Environmental lawyers who argued before Alsup said they were disappointed by his decision. But they said they were also encouraged because, after hearing testimony on the scientific consensus on climate change in an unusual tutorial, he got the industry to endorse the robustness of the science in a court of law.</div><div>
</div><div>He heard the case only because he ruled that it belonged in his court rather than in a state court, where the plaintiffs brought it.</div><div>
</div><div>In contrast, U.S. District Court Judge Vincent Chhabria ruled earlier this year that similar cases brought by Marin and San Mateo counties and the city of Imperial Beach could be best adjudicated under California law. That ruling on venue is being appealed by the industry.</div><div>
</div><div>Alsup's ruling on the merits shouldn't have much bearing on the other California cases, especially those that have survived attempts by the industry to have them moved to federal court, said Ann Carlson, an environmental law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law.</div><div>
</div><div>"The judge in those cases rejected the motion to remove and remanded the cases back to state court," Carlson said. "State law will govern those cases, not federal law. And state law is much more favorable for the plaintiffs than federal law is."</div><div>
</div><div>A Setback, But Cities Aren't Giving Up</div><div>San Francisco and Oakland sued Chevron, Exxon, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum last year, claiming the companies knew the climate risks their products were creating yet engaged in widespread campaigns to downplay the dangers.</div><div>
</div><div>In a case that saw the Trump Administration weigh in on the side of the industry, the two cities were fighting to force the companies to pay what could have totaled billions of dollars for the coastal infrastructure to protect property and neighborhoods against sea level rise.</div><div>
</div><div>Alsup ruled that the solution is not a legal matter but rather a policy matter.</div><div>
</div><div>"While it remains true that our federal courts have authority to fashion common law remedies for claims based on global warming, courts must also respect and defer to the other co-equal branches of government when the problem at hand clearly deserves a solution best addressed by those branches," the judge wrote.</div><div>
</div><div>Reaction from Oakland and San Francisco officials predictably reflected both disappointment and resolve to continuing the fight though appeals.</div><div>
</div><div>"This is obviously not the ruling we wanted, but this doesn't mean the case is over," said John Coté, communications director for San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera.</div><div>
</div><div>Although Alsup's ruling was a setback, Coté said the case forced a public airing of climate science conclusive of the industry role in climate change. "Our belief remains that these companies are liable for the harm they've caused," he said.</div><div>
</div><div>Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker also expressed disappointment.</div><div>
</div><div>"We believe our lawsuit presents valid claims and these defendants must be held accountable for misleading the American people about the catastrophic risks to human beings and all forms of life on this planet caused by fossil fuel-driven global warming and sea level rise," she said in a prepared statement.</div><div>
</div><div>Balancing Fossil Fuel Harms and Benefits&nbsp;</div><div>The Oakland and San Francisco lawsuits mirror those filed in the last nine months by six other California cities and counties, as well as by New York City and in Colorado and Washington state. Some of those lawsuits seek financial compensation to fight the climate risks that go beyond sea-level rise and include wildfire and drought.</div><div>
</div><div>The industry has challenged each of the California cases, saying they belong in federal court because federal statues under the Clean Air Act govern emissions and take precedence over state laws.</div><div>
</div><div>San Francisco and Oakland have faced an uphill battle ever since the cases landed in Alsup's court earlier this year. Unusual requests by Alsup for aclimate tutorial and legal essays addressing the question of how to hold fossil fuel companies responsible without losing the benefit of fossil fuels focused added attention on the cases.</div><div>
</div><div>It appears Alsup wrestled with that question.</div><div>
</div><div>"With respect to balancing the social utility against the gravity of the anticipated harm, it is true that carbon dioxide released from fossil fuels has caused (and will continue to cause) global warming," the judge wrote.</div><div>
</div><div>"But against that negative, we must weigh this positive: our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal. Without those fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible."</div><div>
</div><div>Ultimately he deferred responsibility for balancing the pluses and minuses of fossil use to the "expertise of our environmental agencies, our diplomats, our Executive, and at least the Senate."</div><div>
</div><div>The judge also brushed aside the cities' nuanced arguments that federal pollution laws were not binding in this case because they were suing the companies for producing the fossil fuel not for creating the emissions, said William Ruskin, a lawyer who has spent his career defending corporate giants against tort, environmental and liability claims.</div><div>
</div><div>Ruskin said the cities were themselves responsible for their crumbling infrastructure.</div><div>
</div><div>"The failure to protect against rising sea levels are just one piece of this larger phenomenon," he said. "There is a failure on the part of our municipal, state and local governments to raise taxes or issue bonds to address these longstanding problems."</div><div>
</div><div>The Difference in State Courts&nbsp;</div><div>Pat Parenteau, a professor of environmental law at the Vermont Law School who has advised some of the municipal plaintiffs, said Alsup's ruling fails to address the central question of whether the cities have valid common law claims.</div><div>
</div><div>"This is a pollution case, this is what it is," Parenteau said. By citing preemption and blaming the victims, Alsup "invokes these various doctrines but they don't have any relevance to carbon pollution."</div><div>
</div><div>Parenteau said he thinks that Alsup will be overturned on appeal.</div><div>
</div><div>The lawsuits, as initially filed in California state courts, rested on the state's strong public nuisance statutes. The cities claimed that the oil and gas companies knowingly created a public nuisance from the heat-trapping greenhouse gases generated by burning fossil fuels, which were responsible for sea level rise that threatens to overwhelm their communities.</div><div>
</div><div>If a city prevails in such a case, it would break new legal ground, but would build on existing precedents. An analogous case instigated by California cities and counties against three paint manufacturers rested on the public nuisance theory that lead paint in old homes constituted a danger. After years of litigation, the companies lost in court and were ordered to pay more than $1 billion in damages. The companies continue to fight the ruling via legislation or ballot referendum.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>buffet coal nevada; ISP places side bets/hedge but gets beat?</div><div>
</div><div>https://consumerwatchdog.org/betting-against-house-how-californias-leaders-could-gamble-away-our-energy-future-western-power</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.pressreader.com/usa/san-francisco-chronicle/20180618/281509341902286</div><div>
</div><div>4400 marin not make 30 yr mort sf chron</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>100K houses ca</div><div>
</div><div>2045</div><div>
</div><div>marin san mateo, OC 3700</div><div>
</div><div>https://www.ucsusa.org/press/2018/25-million-homes-businesses-totaling-1-trillion-threatened-high-tide-flooding</div><div>
</div><div>2.5 Million Homes, Businesses Totaling $1 Trillion Threatened by High Tide Flooding</div><div>Study Finds Coastal Municipalities May Lose Huge Sums in Property Tax Revenue</div><div>WASHINGTON (June 18, 2018)—Accelerating sea level rise in the lower 48 states, primarily driven by climate change, is projected to worsen tidal flooding, putting as many as 311,000 coastal homes with a collective market value of about $117.5 billion today at risk of chronic flooding within the next 30 years—the lifespan of a typical mortgage—according to a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released today. Roughly 14,000 coastal commercial properties assessed at a value of roughly $18.5 billion also are at risk during that timeframe. By the end of the century, homes and businesses currently worth more than $1 trillion could be at risk: as many as 2.4 million homes—roughly the equivalent of all the homes in Los Angeles and Houston combined—valued at approximately $912 billion and 107,000 commercial properties assessed at $152 billion.&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>The analysis uses property data from the online real estate company Zillow combined with a peer-reviewed methodology developed by UCS for assessing areas at risk of frequent flooding. Using three sea level rise scenarios developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), UCS determined how many residential and commercial properties along the entire lower 48 coastline are at risk of becoming chronically inundated from high tides, flooding an average of 26 times per year or more, in the coming decades even in the absence of major storms. The core results in the report are from the high sea level rise scenario—an appropriately conservative projection to use when estimating risk to homes, which are often the owner’s single biggest asset.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>“What’s striking as we look along our coasts is that the significant risks of sea level rise to properties identified in our study often aren’t reflected in current home values in coastal real estate markets,” said Rachel Cleetus, an economist and policy director for the Climate and Energy Program at UCS, as well as a report co-author. “Unfortunately, in the years ahead many coastal communities will face declining property values as risk perceptions catch up with reality. In contrast with previous housing market crashes, values of properties chronically inundated due to sea level rise are unlikely to recover and will only continue to go further underwater, literally and figuratively.”</div><div>
</div><div>The consequences of chronic flooding of properties in specific communities could translate not just into eroding property values, but also into unlivable houses and falling tax revenues that fund schools, roads and emergency services in those places. The properties at risk by 2045 currently house roughly 550,000 people and contribute nearly $1.5 billion toward today’s property tax base. These numbers jump to about 4.7 million people and $12 billion by 2100. Municipalities are looking at even deeper revenue declines when commercial property, sales, and other business tax losses are factored in.</div><div>
</div><div>“For some communities, the potential hit to the local tax base could be staggering,” said Kristy Dahl, senior climate scientist at UCS and report co-author. “Some smaller, more rural communities may see 30, 50, or even 70 percent of their property tax revenue at risk due to the number of chronically inundated homes. Tax base erosion could create particular challenges for communities already struggling with high poverty rates.”</div><div>
</div><div>According to the analysis, states with the most homes at risk by the end of the century are Florida, with about 1 million homes or more than 10 percent of the state’s current residential properties, New Jersey with 250,000 homes, and New York with 143,000 homes. States that could lose the most in home property values by 2100 are Florida at $351 billion, New Jersey at $108 billion, and New York at nearly $100 billion. Decreases in property values also mean a lower property tax base. Florida, New York and New Jersey will see the biggest hits to their annual property tax revenue with municipalities losing about $5 billion, $1.9 billion and $1.7 billion total respectively.</div><div>
</div><div>“Not all affected communities will share the same experience,” said Erika Spanger-Siegfried, senior analyst in the Climate and Energy Program at UCS and report co-author. “Some may see sharp adjustments to their housing market in the not-too-distant future; some could see a slow, steady decline in home values; and others could potentially invest in protective measures to keep impacts at bay for a few more decades. In any case, by knowing how much time they have before a significant number of properties will be regularly flooded, communities can start planning and implementing responses now, while they still have a range of options from which to choose.”</div><div>
</div><div>Economic consequences could also hit some communities harder than others. Nearly 175 communities would expect to see 10 percent or more of their homes at risk of chronic flooding by 2045, with nearly 60 of those communities experiencing poverty levels above the national average. Additionally, of the roughly 75 communities with 30 percent or more of their property tax base at risk, about one-third of these have poverty rates above the national average. The places that could be hit hardest in this way include communities in: Louisiana, Maryland, New Jersey, and North Carolina. Similarly, communities with large African American or Hispanic populations—many located in California, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina and Texas—could also be at an inherent disadvantage in taking steps to prevent or recover from chronic flooding, due to longstanding social and economic inequities.</div><div>
</div><div>“While wealthier homeowners may risk losing more of their net wealth cumulatively, less-wealthy ones are in jeopardy of losing a greater percentage of what they own,” said Cleetus. “Homes often represent a larger share of total assets for elderly or low-income residents. Renters too might find themselves in a tight market or having to put up with decaying buildings and increased nuisance flooding. Hits to the property tax base in low-income communities, which already experience significant underinvestment in critical services and infrastructure, could prove especially challenging.”</div><div>
</div><div>Meanwhile, the loss of coastal property values will have reverberations throughout the economy—affecting banks, insurers, investors, and developers—potentially triggering regional housing market crises or a more widespread economic crisis. Homeowners whose properties become chronically inundated could find themselves with mortgages that exceed the value of their homes, face steeply rising flood insurance premiums, or even default on their loans. Lenders carrying large numbers of these risky mortgages could lose money or eventually become insolvent, with smaller banks concentrated in regions with high flood risk being especially exposed. Coastal real estate investors and developers may similarly experience financial losses in some coastal areas.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>“Actions today, especially the amount of global warming emissions we release, will help determine what our coasts will look like at the end of the century,” said Astrid Caldas, senior climate scientist at UCS and report co-author. “If we manage to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement by keeping warming to between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius and if ice loss is limited, 85 percent of all affected residential properties—valued at $782 billion today and currently accounting for more than $10.4 billion in annual property tax revenue to municipal governments—could avoid chronic flooding this century. The longer we wait to drastically reduce emissions, the less likely it is that we will achieve this outcome.”</div><div>
</div><div>There are currently many well-intentioned federal, state and local policies that mask risk and create incentives that reinforce the status quo or even expose more people and property to risk. The market’s bias toward short-term decision-making and profits can also perpetuate risky investment choices. These flawed policies and incentives include inaccurate flood risk information, subsidized insurance, lax zoning and building codes, incentives for business-as-usual building and re-building, and incomplete credit ratings.</div><div>
</div><div>“Targeting improvements to the policies and market drivers of risky coastal development is essential to better protect communities and move the nation toward greater resilience,” said Shana Udvardy, climate resilience analyst at UCS and report co-author. “Short-sighted policies and market drivers will need to be phased-out to discourage risky behavior and to ensure changes won’t be too jarring on homeowners and the real estate market.”</div><div>
</div><div>To view the report PDF, click here.</div><div>
</div><div>Spreadsheets with data about the chronically inundated properties are available and can be sorted by state, by community (delineated by the Census Bureau as county subdivisions), and by ZIP code.</div><div>
</div><div>To use the interactive mapping tool, click here. The map allows you to learn more about the impact of chronic inundation on properties, people, home values and the tax base in specific states, communities or ZIP codes. When you zoom in, the maps become more detailed. You can also click on a specific state or community for more details about it.</div><div>
</div><div>For all other materials, including our methodology document, a compilation of interviews with additional experts on this topic, and Spanish-language materials, click here.&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>mma</div><div>
</div><div>If you live in a midsize city or battleground state, you are now more likely than ever to see pro-Trump propaganda and conservative spin on your local news -- just in time for the 2018 election season -- thanks to conservative media giant Sinclair Broadcast Group.</div><div>
</div><div>Media Matters has identified communities that will see competitive congressional midterm races and that have Sinclair-owned or -operated news stations. Many Sinclair stations are already airing national news programming with a conservative slant, and they will be ramping up coverage of their local races.</div><div>
</div><div>We’ve already tackled Nevada, Tennessee, New York, Florida, Virginia, and Ohio. Now, we’re taking a look at California.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Key 2018 races</div><div>There are seven key congressional district races in California, most labeled by Cook Political Report as toss-up or “lean Republican” races and some targeted as key races by political groups. One currently includes several communities with Sinclair news stations, and the rest may have at least one Sinclair station before Election Day.</div><div>
</div><div>House: California’s 21st congressional district (CA-21), in the central San Joaquin Valley, was considered a “likely Republican” race by Cook Political Report as of publication, but it is one of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s targeted races for 2018. Incumbent Republican Rep. David Valadao faces Democrat challenger TJ Cox.</div><div>House: There are six other key House races in California, many in districts that are part of Orange County and/or the greater Los Angeles area: CA-10, CA-25, CA-39, CA-45, CA-48, and CA-49.</div><div>Sinclair stations in the state</div><div>KMPH (Fox 26), KFRE (CW 59), and KMPH-CD in Fresno</div><div>
</div><div>Sinclair controls KMPH (Fox 26) and KFRE (CW 59), two main local stations in the Fresno area, including parts of CA-21. It also owns KMPH-CD, a separate, small station that relays Fox 26 broadcasts to certain parts of the media market. All three stations share a main studio address in Fresno.</div><div>Fox 26 regularly airs at least some of Sinclair’s “must-run” content, including some nationally produced news packages, fearmongering “Terrorism Alert Desk” updates, and “Bottom Line with Boris” pro-Trump commentary segments. It also aired the recent anchor-read scripted segments about media bias at least twice.</div><div>The CW 59 re-airs some newscasts from Fox 26, likely including some of these “must-run” segments.</div><div>KBAK (CBS 29) and KBFX (Fox 58) in Bakersfield</div><div>
</div><div>Also serving parts of CA-21 are the Sinclair-owned KBAK (CBS 29) and KBFX (Fox 58). The stations share a website and main studio address, and they are together branded as “Bakersfield Now” and “Eyewitness News.”&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>CBS 29 regularly airs at least some of Sinclair “must-run” content, including nationally produced news packages, “Terrorism Alert Desk,” and “Bottom Line with Boris.” CBS 29 also airs both Sinclair-connected weekly news programs, Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson and The Armstrong Williams Show.</div><div>Fox 58 also regularly airs some Sinclair “must-run” content, including nationally produced news packages. Fox 58 also airs Full Measure.</div><div>Both stations ran the recent anchor-read scripted segments about media bias numerous times. CBS 29 aired the segment at least 26 times, while Fox 58 aired it at least 16.</div><div>KRCR (ABC 7), KCVU (Fox 20), KUCO-LP (Univision), and KRVU-LD (MyNetwork) in Chico and Redding</div><div>
</div><div>Further north, Sinclair owns a group of four stations in the media market serving the areas around Chico and Redding: KRCR (ABC, News Channel 7), KVCU (Fox 20), and smaller stations KUCO-LP (a Univision affiliate) and KRVU-LD (a MyNetwork TV affiliate).</div><div>ABC 7 regularly airs at least some of Sinclair’s “must-run” content, including national news packages, “Terrorism Alert Desk,” and “Bottom Line with Boris.” It also airs Full Measure, and it ran the recent anchor-read scripted segments about media bias at least 17 times. Fox 20 airs a nightly KRCR newscast, likely including some of these “must-run” segments.</div><div>KAEF (ABC 23), KBVU (Fox 28), KECA-LD (CW), and KEUV-LP (Univision) in Eureka</div><div>
</div><div>Sinclair also controls a group of four stations in the Eureka media market, which neighbors the market serving Chico and Redding. It owns KAEF (ABC 23), KBVU (Fox 28), and smaller stations KECA-LD (a CW affiliate) and KEUV-LP (a Univision affiliate.) ABC 23 and Fox 28 -- together branded as “North Coast News” -- share a website with the Sinclair-owned ABC and Fox affiliates in Chico and Redding.</div><div>Data is not currently available for ABC 23 or Fox 28’s airing of “must-run” segments. ABC 23 does airSinclair’s weekly news show Full Measure and appears to likely share some news resources with KRCR (ABC 7) in nearby Redding, which airs “must-run” content.&nbsp; &nbsp;</div><div>Coming soon: KTLA (KTLA 5, CW) in Los Angeles</div><div>
</div><div>Sinclair is set to purchase several more California local news stations via its pending acquisition of Tribune Media, including KTLA (KTLA 5, a CW affiliate) in Los Angeles, one of the largest local media markets in the country.</div><div>KTLA serves parts of CA-25, CA-39, CA-45, CA-48, and CA-49.</div><div>Possibly coming soon: KSWB (Fox 5) in San Diego and KTXL (Fox 40) in Sacramento</div><div>
</div><div>Sinclair also plans to acquire KSWB (Fox 5) in San Diego, which serves parts of CA-49. However, Sinclair has agreed to sell the station to 21st Century Fox in order to comply with current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ownership limits.</div><div>Sinclair plans to use the same strategy for KTXL (Fox 40) in Sacramento, which serves parts of both CA-10 and CA-21. It will also acquire the station from Tribune Media and has agreed to sell it to Fox.</div><div>Are there Sinclair stations near you?</div><div>Use Media Matters’ interactive map at FindSinclair.com to learn more.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/how-california-could-get-its-money-out-of-wall-street-20180606</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.ecowatch.com/nestle-water-san-bernardino-2575958681.html</div><div>
</div><div>Settlement Ends Nestlé’s Expired 'Zombie' Permit to Siphon Water From San Bernardino National Forest</div><div>
</div><div>Federal officials and conservation groups reached an agreement Wednesday that will finally end Nestlé Corp.'s ability to rely on a permit that expired 30 years ago to siphon water from the San Bernardino National Forest for its massive bottled-water operation. The company's diversion has severely reduced water in spring-fed Strawberry Creek, which forest wildlife and plants need to survive.</div><div>
</div><div>This settlement of the 2015 lawsuit requires the U.S. Forest Service to decide in 30 days whether or not to issue a new permit for the pipeline and Nestlé's associated activities in the San Bernardino National Forest.The Center for Biological Diversity, Courage Campaign Institute and the Story of Stuff Project agreed to dismiss an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the old "zombie" permit after a new decision is issued. The groups reserved the right to challenge any new Forest Service decision.</div><div>
</div><div>Under the expired permit, Nestlé siphoned off as much as 162 million gallons of water a year from Strawberry Creek. Nestlé, the world's largest water-bottling company, earned $8.3 billion in profits from its water business in 2016. U.S. Geological Survey reports from July 2017 show that, despite heavy winter precipitation across California, Strawberry Creek's streamflow levels were the lowest since the agency began keeping track 96 years ago.</div><div>
</div><div>"This agreement stops Nestlé and the Forest Service from relying on a 30-year-old permit, but Strawberry Creek still desperately needs protection," said Ileene Anderson, a senior biologist at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The real tragedy is that Nestlé is sucking the creek dry to bottle water for profit, dooming plants and wildlife that have relied on it for tens of thousands of years. We'll keep fighting to protect Strawberry Creek and our forests from commercial exploitation."</div><div>
</div><div>The groups are urging the Forest Service to deny a new permit to Nestlé to safeguard the public land, water, plants and animals of the San Bernardino National Forest. If a new permit is issued, the agency should ensure there is enough water left in Strawberry Creek to support fish, wildlife and native plants year round.</div><div>
</div><div>The State Water Resources Control Board is also evaluating Nestlé's water rights on Strawberry Creek, which a board investigation determined is far less than the corporation claims.</div><div>
</div><div>...</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>CALIFORNIA</div><div>Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-01): $2,500 contributed by KochPAC to the Doug LaMalfa Committee.</div><div>Rep. Tom McClintock (R-04): $10,000 contributed by KochPAC to McClintock for Congress.</div><div>Rep. Jeff Denham (R-10): $10,000 contributed by KochPAC to Denham for Congress. He also received $10,000 from KochPAC for his Jeff PAC.</div><div>Rep. Jim Costa (D-16): $1,000 contributed by KochPAC to Jim Costa for Congress.</div><div>Rep. David Valadao (R-21): $10,000 contributed by KochPAC to Valadao for Congress.</div><div>Rep. Devin Nunes (R-22): $6,500 contributed by KochPAC to the Devin Nunes Campaign Committee.</div><div>Rep. Steve Knight (R-25): $10,000 contributed by KochPAC to Steve Knight for Congress.</div><div>Rep. Mimi Walters (R-45): $10,000 contributed by KochPAC to Walters for Congress.</div><div>Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-48): $2,500 contributed by KochPAC to Rohrabacher for Congress.</div><div>COLORADO</div><div>nunes cahing in or trump bs</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09052018/california-climate-change-evidence-auto-emissions-standards-wildfires-heat-waves-water-drought-solar</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;many reasons—rooted in culture, politics and economy—that California has become a leader in the fight against global warming.</div><div>
</div><div>One reason is increasingly obvious: The people who live there are being hit harder than ever by the costly effects of climate change.</div><div>
</div><div>"From record temperatures to proliferating wildfires and rising seas, climate change poses an immediate and escalating threat to California's environment, public health, and economic vitality," a comprehensive state climate change assessment issued Wednesday by the California Environmental Protection Agency says.report notes that state emissions of greenhouse gases have been going down since 1990 when measured on a per capita basis or when compared to economic growth. But in absolute terms, the annual tonnage of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere each year only began to decline about a decade ago.</div><div>
</div><div>The state is on track to meet its goal of cutting emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, but it may have a harder time hitting its 2030 target—a 40 percent reduction from 1990.</div><div>
</div><div>Cars: California's Achilles' Heel</div><div>The biggest challenge to meeting those goals is in the transportation sector.</div><div>
</div><div>The state has stringent emissions standards that rely heavily on the future adoption of electric vehicles, but those standards require a federal waiver, which the Trump administration is now threatening to revoke.</div><div>
</div><div>Trends in California's Population, Economy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions</div><div>Fans of the California model say there's hope to avoid the worst effects of climate change if the state helps set a pattern for the whole world with landmark policies that promote electric cars, a wholesale shift to clean energy and an effective price on carbon pollution. If not, the damage will continue to build up.</div><div>
</div><div>"Humans have found ways of compensating for the changes that we are seeing in our environment at the moment, but that doesn't mean that, as these changes become larger, we'll be able to accommodate them so easily," said Philip Rasch, chief climate scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, who was not involved in the report. "I am worried, and my suggestion to society is that it would be prudent to avoid putting ourselves into this situation as much as possible."</div><div>
</div><div>Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA, said the assessment offered a cohesive picture of just how much the climate has changed in recent years.</div><div>
</div><div>"We're now at a stage where these are no longer projections for the future, these are observational realities on the ground right now, and they are pretty striking numbers," he said.</div><div>
</div><div>Chart: California's Annual Temperature Is Rising</div><div>The report's findings on environmental conditions in the state include:</div><div>
</div><div>Annual average air temperatures have increased since 1895, with the warmest four years on record occurring in the last four years.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Five of the state's years with severe to extreme drought since record keeping began in 1895 occurred between 2007 and 2016.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Some of the largest glaciers in the Sierra Nevada have lost between 50 to 85 percent? of their surface area since 1903.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The area burned by wildfires each year has been increasing since 1950. Five of the largest fire years have occurred since 2006. The largest single recorded wildfire in the state, the Thomas Fire, which resulted in the filing of more than $1.8 billion in insurance claims, occurred in 2017.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Sea level has risen between 6 and 7 inches on average along the California coast since 1900.</div><div>Cities, State Policies Aim to Rein in Emissions</div><div>The report comes as eight cities and counties in California are suing oil and gas companies over the costs of climate change. The lawsuits allege that the companies knew for decades that the burning of fossil fuels was one of the biggest contributors to global warming but, instead of trying to reduce harm, the companies downplayed the risks of climate change.</div><div>
</div><div>The California Energy Commission voted Wednesday on another step to rein in emissions: It approved new energy standards that will require most new homes in the state to have solar panels starting in 2020.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Solar requirements such as these are critical for addressing climate change, not only in California, but globally, Swain said. "Anything that moves us in the direction of electrifying our transportation sector or actually making the electricity we are producing renewable, these are really important things to be doing, and we're not doing them fast enough."</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>https://www.alternet.org/water-war-will-decide-fate-1-8-americans</div><div>
</div><div>colorado river</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>=</div><div>https://www.ecowatch.com/california-solar-homes-2566690235.html</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;California Set to Require Solar on Most New Homes</div><div>California could become the first state in the country to require solar panels on most new homes.</div><div>
</div><div>The state's energy commission will vote on the new standard on Wednesday, May 9 and they are expected to approve it, the Orange County Register reported.</div><div>
</div><div>If approved, the mandate would apply to all houses, condos and apartment buildings up to three stories tall that obtain building permits after Jan. 1, 2020. The exception will be for homes that are shaded by trees or buildings or have a roof too small to accommodate solar panels.</div><div>
</div><div>The plan will not require the home to reach "net-zero" status, which means the total amount of energy consumed is equal to the amount of renewable energy created. But homebuilders who install a battery, like a Tesla Powerwall, will get a "compliance credit" that allows them to further reduce the size of the solar array.</div><div>
</div><div>The standards could add $25,000 to $30,000 to the construction costs compared with homes built to the 2006 code, C.R. Herro, the vice president of environmental affairs for Meritage Homes, told the Orange County Register. Herro added that the homeowner will save an estimated $50,000 to $60,000 in reduced operating costs over the solar system's 25-year lifespan.</div><div>
</div><div>However, critics warn the new mandate could worsen the state's housing shortage by making homes more unaffordable. Other detractors argue that the proposal does not go far enough, and that California should mandate net-zero homes.</div><div>
</div><div>The Golden State, with 19.8 gigawatts of solar PV capacity, is the nation's undisputed solar champion (it has five-times the capacity of second-ranked North Carolina.) About 15 to 20 percent of new single-family homes in California currently include solar installations.</div><div>
</div><div>Two years ago, San Francisco became the first major city in the U.S. to require all buildings 10 floors or less to designate at least 15 percent of the rooftop for solar use. The famously green metropolis was following in the footsteps of the smaller towns Lancaster and Sebastopol. The municipalities, which are also in California, passed similar mandates in 2013.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;becerra sues epa cafe 5/18</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-forest-ecosystem-2564720055.html</div><div>
</div><div>Climate Change Threatens Unique West Coast Forest Region</div><div>
</div><div>The Klamath is a unique region in Northern California and Southwest Oregon. In addition to being a haven for biodiversity— hosting plants that only live in its mountainous landscape and 29 different species of conifers—it also stores carbon in its diverse array of tall trees.</div><div>
</div><div>But those iconic trees, and their carbon-storing power, are under threat from climate change, a study published Monday in Scientific Reports found.</div><div>
</div><div>Using a landscape simulation model, researchers at Harvard University, Portland State University and the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute looked at five different potential climate change scenarios and found that, even under a continuation of current climate conditions, up to one third of the conifer landscape could be replaced by less-carbon-absorbing shrubs and hardwood this century.</div><div>
</div><div>This change in vegetation is largely driven by the impact of climate change on wildfires. Conifers are adapted to withstand fires, but climate change reduces the time between fires, called the "fire rotation period," and increases their size and severity.</div><div>
</div><div>Researchers found that every climate change scenario also increased drought in the summers, which made it harder for all plant species to re-establish themselves after fires. This effect was worse for conifers, whose ability to regrow decreased from 26 to 39 percent depending on the climate scenario, while shrubs declined by 7 to 20 percent.</div><div>
</div><div>"If the fire-free interval is too short or if the growing conditions are too dry, the shrubs can persist indefinitely, and the iconic conifers are squeezed out," study co-author and Harvard senior ecologist Jonathan Thompson said in a Harvard press release published by Phys.org.</div><div>
</div><div>While the conifer-dominated area was reduced even under current climate conditions, that area further decreased in the climate change scenarios.</div><div>
</div><div>"As the climate continues to warm, big severe wildfires will be more frequent, and the dry conditions that follow will increasingly favor shrubs over conifers. The combination will mean less of the conifer forest that make the Klamath so distinct," Thompson said.</div><div>
</div><div>The findings corresponded with other studies that have observed larger fires in Western forests due to climate change. The two warmest climate scenarios predicted forest fires that would break the record for largest fire in the area, currently held by the Biscuit Fire of 2002.</div><div>
</div><div>The researchers hypothesized that vegetation shifted from conifers to shrubs even under current climate conditions in part because climate change has already begun and in part because of 20th-century fire suppression that gave conifers an advantage.</div><div>
</div><div>...</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;=</div><div>
</div><div>https://www.ecowatch.com/better-vehicle-standards-drive-innovation-2563561982.html</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Ca Cda</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/10/koch-nichols-scott-pruitt-strip-california-waiver-regulate-auto-emissions</div><div>
</div><div>...In the weeks leading up to his announcement about the emissions standards, Pruitt had taken a more antagonistic tone towards California, signaling that he might attempt to revoke the waiver that was granted by the Obama administration, per legal mandate, in 2009.</div><div>
</div><div>“California is not the arbiter of these issues,” Pruitt told Bloomberg News in March, adding that the state “shouldn’t and can’t dictate to the rest of the country what these levels are going to be.”</div><div>
</div><div>With the waiver in hand, California can continue to enforce current greenhouse gas emissions standards, despite whatever the EPA sets as the new national standards for model years 2022-2025. On top of that, any other state can choose to adopt California’s standards, which 13 other states and the District of Columbia currently have.</div><div>
</div><div>Because these states represent roughly one-third of the country’s personal vehicle market, automakers would have to decide whether to set up two different production lines for states following the California standards and the rest of the country, or whether to treat California’s targets as a de facto national standard.</div><div>
</div><div>Predictably, the automakers, through the powerful Auto Alliance and Global Automakers trade groups, are calling for one national regime, which could result from a grand bargain like the one that Pruitt just scrapped, or could be delivered by Pruitt stripping California of its waiver.</div><div>
</div><div>Any attempt at such a repeal would be hugely controversial, and possibly illegal, due to many nuances in the Clean Air Act and the history of its application and enforcement. A waiver granted to California under the Clean Air Act has never been revoked, and has only been denied once.</div><div>
</div><div>Notably, that lone denial came in December 2007 when William (Bill) Wehrum, who ran the EPA’s clean air division at the time, convinced then-EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to reject the state’s request to set its own greenhouse gas standards for vehicles, the very issue at hand today.</div><div>
</div><div>(California was later granted that same waiver in 2009 under the Obama administration, after the state sued the EPA, and after the Supreme Court had held in 2007 that the EPA was required to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. For a much more comprehensive background on California’s waiver and Wehrum’s opposition, see this recent Desmog article.)</div><div>
</div><div>Today, Wehrum is again the air chief at the EPA, and is again in a position to attempt to strip California of its unique authority to set its own air pollution limits. As Wehrum, Pruitt, and EPA policymakers work to figure out the new national emissions standards for cars and light trucks, they are hearing from groups including the American Consumer Institute and its Koch-tied coalition on the importance of revoking the California waiver.</div><div>
</div><div>Who Are the Groups Fighting California’s Clean Air Act Waiver?</div><div>The ACI letter to Pruitt, dated March 28, 2018, was signed by representatives from 11 groups, eight of which have known ties to the Koch network, and all of which are routine commenters on conservative issues.</div><div>
</div><div>The American Consumer Institute (ACI) is credited with organizing the coalition, and the letter is signed by its President Steve Pociask. The group is best known for opposing net neutrality efforts while being funded by a major internet service provider (ISP) lobby, as journalist Lee Fang detailed for VICE. More recently, Pociask has turned his attention to attacking electric vehicles, writing on Forbes that “the science on electric vehicles does not support continuing California’s waiver.”</div><div>
</div><div>Less Government is an “organization dedicated to reducing the power of government and protecting the First Amendment from governmental assault,” which was founded and run by Seton Motley, who is also listed as a Policy Adviser to the climate science-denying Heartland Institute. Though Motley and his Less Government org have their roots in telecom and media issues, he has in recent years engaged more on climate and energy issues, signing some anti-wind energy letters organized by the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity and writing a bit on electric vehicles.</div><div>
</div><div>The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) is part of the network of front groups funded by the Koch brothers and their donor network through the Center to Protect Patient Rights (now called American Encore), and Freedom Partners. As the Energy and Policy Institute has described, “TPA essentially exists as a shell for its advocacy, based on its own IRS form 990s: 'The Taxpayers Protection Alliance has given control of the management duties and the daily activities of the organization to MLM Consulting, LLC (MLM). MLM will be responsible for managing the organization and work to support the exempt purposes of TPA. The President of TPA, David Williams, is the sole owner of MLM Consulting LLC.'” Williams signed the ACIletter to Pruitt. TPA has fought clean energy policy in the past using the website SolarSecrets.org and has published white papers arguing against solar energy tax credits.</div><div>
</div><div>Consumer Action for a Strong Economy is run by Matthew Kandrach, and has been linked to a number of coalition efforts stemming from the FreedomWorks organization, which was born of a merger between the Koch-founded Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) and Empower America.</div><div>
</div><div>American Commitment is run by Phil Kerpen, a former Vice President of Americans for Prosperity. The organization was founded by Sean Noble, a right-wing operative with close ties to the Koch brothers who also runs the Center to Protect Patient Rights (American Encore), a major funnel for Koch donor network money to front groups.</div><div>
</div><div>FreedomWorks was, as mentioned above, born of a merger between the Koch-founded Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE)and Empower America, though it has no known Koch ties at present day. The group was described in a 2012 article in Mother Jones as “one of the main political outfits of the conservative movement and an instrumental force within the tea party.” It pushes free market policies and has questioned the well-established science linking human activity to a warming planet.</div><div>
</div><div>The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a conservative advocacy group dedicated to “economic freedom” that has received funding from ExxonMobil, Texaco, and the family foundations of the Koch brothers.</div><div>
</div><div>Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is an anti-tax group that has received funding from the oil and gas lobbying group, the American Petroleum Institute, along with various groups in the Koch network such as the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation and the Center to Protect Patient Rights, as well as DonorsTrust.</div><div>
</div><div>The 60 Plus Association describes itself as the conservative alternative to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and receives significant funding from groups connected to the Koch brothers. The group has also received funding from the American Petroleum Institute, and was created by Sean Noble (see American Commitment above). Noble was until recently a consultant for the Arizona Public Service utility company, and has led efforts in Arizona to kill solar-friendly legislation.</div><div>
</div><div>Frontiers of Freedom, run by George Landrith, has received significant funding from Exxon, the Koch brothers, and dark money organizations like Donors Trust. In 2015, Landrith launched the Energy Equality Coalition to battle against the federal electric vehicle tax credit. The coalition also includes David Williams of the Taxpayer Protection Alliance and Horace Cooper, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute. Landrith is also a director of the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR).&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>The Center for Freedom and Prosperity was once funded by the Charles Koch Foundation and has actively lobbied for more liberalized tax laws, and for less scrutiny towards offshore tax havens.</div><div>
</div><div>Seven of the organizations that signed this letter to Pruitt — and five of the actual representatives who signed — also recently penned a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defending “electronic and heat-not-burn” tobacco products (or vaping products), indicating that this network is defending the tobacco industry as well as oil and gas companies.</div><div>
</div><div>California and Partner States Fight Back</div><div>Nichols has signaled that California will not be retreating from its strong standards.</div><div>
</div><div>“California will not weaken its nationally accepted clean car standards, and automakers will continue to meet those higher standards, bringing better gas mileage and less pollution for everyone,” Nichols wrote in a statement emailed to reporters. “This decision takes the U.S. auto industry backward, and we will vigorously defend the existing clean vehicle standards and fight to preserve one national clean vehicle program.”</div><div>
</div><div>California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has also said that California is prepared to sue if the EPA moves to weaken the vehicle emissions standards.</div><div>
</div><div>“We are going to do everything that can been done to defend these standards,” Becerra told Reuters last week. “So far, when we have been challenged on environmental standards we have had a good record in court. We haven’t lost a case.”</div><div>
</div><div>Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to grant California a waiver on air pollution emissions standards if the state has “compelling and extraordinary circumstances,” which California argued a decade ago, and which the Obama administration agreed that it does. To revoke the waiver, the EPA would legally have to prove that those circumstances are no longer there. To satisfy the courts in California's inevitable legal challenge, this would require a comprehensive and scientifically rigorous analysis.</div><div>
</div><div>At the BNEF Future of Energy Summit on April 10, Nichols said, “The document that came out a week ago from the administrator did nothing to change the nature of the debate. It expressed Mr. Pruitt's view but there was absolutely nothing new in the way of data or analysis to support that view.”&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>She did indicate that she would be willing to sit down with the EPA and automakers to look at some “minor adjustments” to the technical changes measuring how companies could comply, but not the targets themselves. She provided an example related to electric vehicles. “Under the 2012 rules [car companies are] responsible for upstream emissions of power plants for charging EVs [electric vehicles]. I don't think that's a great idea. I didn't think so at the time.”</div><div>
</div><div>However, “if the whole system is up for reexamination,” said Nichols, “then that's a whole different story … That's a different fight. And we would win it.”</div><div>
</div><div>It’s also clear that other states would have California's back and join a legal fight, or start their own. Attorneys general from 11 states said last week in a statement that they would defend California's right to set firm standards.</div><div>
</div><div>“By cooking the books on its review of national auto emissions standards, the Trump administration is putting special interests ahead of New Yorkers’ health and wallets,” said New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. “We stand ready to take legal action to block the Trump administration’s reckless and illegal efforts to reverse these critical standards and the gains we’ve made in ensuring cars are more fuel-efficient and less polluting.”</div><div>
</div><div>TAGS: cafe standardsScott Pruittamerican consumer institutewilliam wehrumFreedomWorkscompetitive enterprise instituteAmericans for Tax Reform60 Plus Associationfrontiers of freedom</div><div>&nbsp;=</div><div>
</div><div>3/18 update</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04042018/climate-change-fossil-fuel-company-lawsuits-timeline-exxon-children-california-cities-attorney-general</div><div>
</div><div>...</div><div>
</div><div>Cities Sue Over Sea Level Rise</div><div>Faced with the possibility of devastating consequences brought by rising sea levels, six cities and three counties in California, along with New York City, filed civil lawsuits against several oil and gas companies.</div><div>
</div><div>The lawsuits make a public nuisance claim and, in some cases, allege negligence. Essentially the lawsuits say the oil and gas companies have known for decades that burning fossil fuels is one of the biggest contributors to global warming. Instead of acting to reduce harm, the cities charge, companies attempted to undermine climate science and mislead the public by downplaying the risk posed by fossil fuels.</div><div>
</div><div>The lawsuits seek billions of dollars to pay for mitigation measures such as sea walls to protect coastal property. The oil and gas companies responded by seeking to move the cases to federal courts, where nuisance claims are less likely to succeed. That jurisdictional battle rages on, with the cases divided between state and federal courts.</div><div>
</div><div>Key Events:</div><div>
</div><div>July 17, 2017: San Mateo County, Marin County and Imperial Beach file separate lawsuits in California Superior Court seeking damages from 37 fossil fuel companies over sea level rise.</div><div>
</div><div>Sept. 19, 2017: San Francisco and Oakland file lawsuits in California Superior Court seeking damages from five fossil fuel companies over sea level rise.</div><div>
</div><div>Dec. 20, 2017: Santa Cruz and Santa Cruz County file lawsuits in California Superior Court against 29 fossil fuel companies, seeking compensation for climate change-related damage.</div><div>
</div><div>Jan. 8, 2018: Exxon asks a Texas court to grant a discovery order allowing the company to question officials in counties and cities suing.</div><div>
</div><div>Jan. 9, 2018: New York City files suit in federal court against five fossil fuel companies over climate change-related costs.</div><div>
</div><div>Jan. 22, 2018: City of Richmond files lawsuit in California Superior Court against 29 fossil fuel companies.</div><div>
</div><div>March 16, 2018: Federal judge rules some of the cases should be tried in state court, creating a conflict with another judge who ruled similar cases belong in federal court.</div><div>
</div><div>March 21, 2018: Federal judge overseeing the San Francisco and Oakland cases hosts a climate change tutorial for the court.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div></div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severance_tax_legislative_history_in_California</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;most recent attempt to pass a severance tax occurred in 2013, which was authored by now State Senator Noreen Evans, was Senate Bill 241, which would have imposed a 9.5% severance tax for oil and a 3.5% severance tax for natural gas. If it had passed, the revenues would have been directed to funding state parks, higher education and the general fund.[13] Senate Bill 241 is currently on the suspense file in the Senate Appropriations Committee.[14] During the same year, Jack Tibbetts, an undergraduate at UC Berkeley, authored and put forward a proposed ballot initiative titled as the California Modernization and Economic Development Act.[15][16] Like Senate Bill 241, this initiative would have taxed oil and gas extraction at 9.5% and directed funds to higher education state parks, as well as provide subsidies to businesses to fund localized renewable energy projects. The measure earned the endorsements of many prominent figures including former US Secretary of Labor Robert Reich and Nobel laureate Dr. Daniel Kammen.[17] The proponent of initiative later joined forces with Senator Evans and both switched their focus from gathering signatures to mobilizing students to support Senate Bill 241.[18] Further recent developments for a severance tax in California include the support of asset manager Tom Steyer. Leading up to 2014, Steyer launched an effort to conduct public education and issue awareness, as well as lobby California legislators for the implementation of a severance tax.[19] A poll conducted by Steyer's nonprofit organization, NextGen Climate, found that 64% of 800 likely California voters for the 2016 election support the tax.[20]</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-lawsuit-2547843097.html</div><div>
</div><div>Two Major Climate Change Lawsuits Move Forward</div><div>
</div><div>By Ken Kimmell</div><div>
</div><div>A major front in the climate change debate has moved to the courtroom, as I've previously discussed. Last week, plaintiffs in two separate cases won significant procedural victories—one against major fossil fuel companies, and a second against the Trump administration. Here are the latest developments and their implications.</div><div>
</div><div>Bay Area vs. Big Oil</div><div>In this suit, The People of the State of California v. BP et al., the cities of San Francisco and Oakland sued five major oil companies (BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conoco Phillips and Shell), charging that these companies created a public nuisance by extracting and selling oil, coal and gas while misleading the public about the harms that these products cause.</div><div>
</div><div>...</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/03/06/california-trump-offshore-drilling-exxon-koch</div><div>
</div><div>Public officials throughout the state of California have made headlines for loudly opposing Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke's decision to approve offshore drilling in California and throughout the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf region.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>This move is part of the Trump administration's broader plans to lease record amounts of offshore areas in the Gulf of Mexico and open up the Atlantic Ocean for drilling. Many city governments, county governments, the California Assembly, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and Governor Jerry Brown have all come out against Zinke's plan. Less discussed, though, is the fact that companies are already drilling offshore in southern California, an area perhaps better known for its popular beaches and oceanside resort cities.</div><div>
</div><div>Some of those offshore platforms are visible during a trip along Highway 1, the famed Pacific Coast Highway. More of those lease holdings are owned by ExxonMobil than any other company, according to a review of U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management leasing data for the Pacific region. However, Koch Industries is also already a player in drilling off the California coast.</div><div>
</div><div>In all, some 188,869 acres of offshore land are dedicated to drilling in the Golden State. Production occurs on 38 different lease holdings. All of these leasings were put in place before the federal government enacted a moratorium on new drilling in California in 1982. The ban arrived in the aftermath of a massive offshore oil spill near Santa Barbara in 1969. That spill, resulting from a well blowout under Union Oil Company's Platform A, spewed as much as 4.2 million gallons of crude into the Pacific Ocean.</div><div>
</div><div>After that oil spill, the California State Lands Commission, which has also come out against the Trump proposal, imposed a state ban on new leases in 1994 through the California Coastal Sanctuary Act. Drilling agreements on the books before 1982, however, have been allowed to continue, and that's where ExxonMobil, Koch, and other companies come into play.</div><div>
</div><div>Of the 38 leases, ExxonMobil is the lead designated operator on 16 of those. Koch, by comparison, is more of a minor player. The company owns a 10.4 percent stake in one offshore drilling operation run by Beta Offshore Company and a 3.7 percent stake in another operated by Freeport McMoran, both of which sit off the coast of Santa Barbara County.</div><div>
</div><div>[maps]</div><div>
</div><div>Credits: U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)</div><div>
</div><div>While neither Koch Industries nor the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity (AFP) branch in California have weighed in on the offshore drilling expansion under Trump, its New Hampshire chapter did celebrate the development in a January press release.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>“Opponents of this proposal don’t have any plan to deliver affordable and reliable energy,” said AFP. “As the discussion on Secretary Zinke’s proposals goes forward, we should be mindful to let the needs of Granite Staters drive the debate, not hyperbole, speculation, or fearmongering.”</div><div>
</div><div>ExxonMobil has not made any public statements to date on the prospects of more drilling on the Pacific Coast. The company has been angling, though, for years to do more drilling on the other side of the Pacific Ocean in the South China Sea.</div><div>
</div><div>Given the drilling that is already taking place in the state, the California-based group Consumer Watchdog pointed out in a February 2017 report that offshore drilling has actually increased under the watch of Governor Brown. Brown is often described as the most environmentally friendly governor in the U.S.</div><div>
</div><div>“[O]il production continues from 1,366 offshore wells in existing leases, according to the California Department of Conservation,” reads the Watchdog report. “Since 2012, regulators issued about 238 permits for new wells in existing offshore leases, and 171 of those offshore wells are currently active.”</div><div>
</div><div>Despite the drilling currently happening off its coast, California appears poised to do everything within its power to stop offshore drilling from expanding in the state, as the Trump administration proposal would have. That includes denying zoning permits and other regulatory permits needed by cities and counties to participate in what is the complex business of high-volume offshore drilling.</div><div>
</div><div>Retired Navy commanders, too, have expressed concerns because offshore drilling in southern California could impact military preparations at its Camp Pendleton Base in Oceanside, located in San Diego County.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div></div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.ecowatch.com/cancer-warning-glyphosate-2540852295.html</div><div>
</div><div>A California federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the public does not need a warning label to inform us that cancer-causing and harmful chemicals in glyphosate herbicides are in our food or products, temporarily relieving manufacturers from the responsibility of being honest with their customers. At a time when more and more American families are struggling with diseases and their high cost, one man decided that it was an injustice to the chemical companies to have to tell us about the presence of their chemicals.</div><div>
</div><div>Senior United States District Judge William B. Shubb released his ruling regarding the case of Wheat Growers and Monsanto against the California Environmental Protection Agency (CA EPA), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the CA attorney general to remove glyphosate, the declared active chemical ingredient in Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world, from the CA Prop 65 carcinogen list, a law approved by California voters by ballot initiative in 1986.</div><div>
</div><div>The judge ruled that OEHHA can keep glyphosate on the Prop 65 carcinogen list but the manufacturers such as Monsanto and food producers will not have to label their products with a warning label. Normally, the law states that products containing chemicals on the list, above a certain level, must label their products within a year from the listing. The label would state, "WARNING this product contains a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm." The temporary preliminary injunction granted by the judge halts the impending labeling by manufacturers of products and foods containing glyphosate and allows them not to inform their customers of this fact ... that glyphosate has been found to cause cancer in animals and to be a probable human carcinogen.</div><div>
</div><div>The result is that OEHHA acknowledges glyphosate-containing products can cause cancer, but cannot require the manufacturers of such products to warn consumers because it could negatively affect corporate profits.</div><div>
</div><div>This one judge, one man, who could not even pronounce "glyphosate" at the beginning of the hour long hearing, has just changed the law and effectively hidden the known cancer-causing effects of glyphosate from not only Californians, but from an entire nation looking to California to lead the way in health regulations.</div><div>
</div><div>One must ask: Why doesn't this judge want you to know what you are eating? Why wouldn't he think it wise to inform the public that cancer causing chemicals are in our food? Is it not a matter of public interest that the chemicals in this herbicide, itself an antibiotic by patent, has been proven to be neurotoxic, genotoxic, endocrine disruptors, which can lead to mental illness and increasing depression and acts of violence, are in our children's peanut butter sandwich? Why aren't couples with infertility being told that the wheat snacks they are eating arelikely keeping them from getting pregnant? Why aren't parents allowed to know that the non-organic orange juice and oatmeal they are giving their baby or the hummus that they eat for lunch contains high levels of glyphosate herbicide which has been proven at ultra low levels to cause nonalcoholic fatty liver disease?</div><div>
</div><div>...</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.ecowatch.com/california-pesticides-health-2539988928.html</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>California Court Ruling Ends Decades of State Pesticide Spraying</div><div>
</div><div>A judge has ordered the California Department of Food and Agriculture to stop using chemical pesticides in its statewide program until the agency complies with state environmental laws.</div><div>
</div><div>The injunction, issued late last week, is a sweeping victory for 11 public-health, conservation, citizen and food-safety groups and the city of Berkeley. The coalition sued the state after unsuccessfully attempting for years to persuade the agency to shift to a sustainable approach to pest control that protects human health and the environment.</div><div>
</div><div>Despite thousands of comment letters urging the department to take a safer approach, officials in 2014 approved a program that gave them broad license to spray 79 pesticides, some known to cause cancer and birth defects, anywhere in the state, including schools, organic farms, public parks and residential yards.</div><div>
</div><div>Spraying was allowed indefinitely and required no analysis of the health and environmental impacts of the chemicals at the specific application sites and no public notice or scrutiny of treatment decisions. Many of the pesticides are also highly toxic to bees, butterflies, fish and birds.</div><div>
</div><div>This injunction follows a Jan. 8 ruling by Judge Timothy M. Frawley voiding approval of the agency's statewide program for numerous violations of state environmental laws, including relying on "unsupported assumptions and speculation" to conclude that pesticides would not contaminate water bodies. The ruling also cited the state's "woefully deficient" analysis of the cumulative danger of increasing the more than 150 million pounds of pesticides already being used in California each year.</div><div>
</div><div>The court process culminating revealed not only far-reaching flaws in the state's analysis of the environmental harm caused by the department's pesticide use but also the agency's decades-long history of evading disclosure of the human health and environmental impacts of its activities by granting itself repeated "emergency" exemptions from environmental laws.</div><div>
</div><div>"After more than 30 years of disregard for state environmental laws, the agency's chemical weapons have finally been taken off the table," said Nan Wishner of the California Environmental Health Initiative. "We hope the department will take this opportunity to shift course and apply sound science, partner with the public, and develop a more sustainable, transparent approach."</div><div>
</div><div>The court also held that the agency had to give public notice of its activities, which officials had insisted was not required.</div><div>
</div><div>"The court rejected the agency's blank check to spray people's yards, exposing children and pets to a range of pesticides that can cause serious long-term problems, including cancer, asthma and IQ loss," said Debbie Friedman, founder of MOMS Advocating Sustainability. "If only the $4.5 million in taxpayer dollars used to develop this outdated program had been spent to develop a modern, sustainable approach that does not rely on toxic chemicals, just imagine what progress we could have made toward a healthier environment for everyone."</div><div>
</div><div>"Now California must ensure these pesticides aren't harming our water supplies and imperiled species like salmon," said Jonathan Evans, environmental health legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "This ruling affirms that people should have a voice in pesticide use in their neighborhoods."</div><div>
</div><div>The state's attorney told the court that the Department of Food and Agriculture had already carried out more than 1,000 pesticide treatments since the program was approved in 2014. Program pesticides include these dangerous chemicals:</div><div>
</div><div>• Chlorpyrifos, known to cause brain damage in children and to threaten 97 percent of endangered wildlife;</div><div>• Neonicotinoid pesticides that are highly toxic to pollinators like bees and aquatic invertebrates like crustaceans and mollusks;</div><div>• The toxic fumigant methyl bromide, which depletes the protective ozone layer;</div><div>• The chemical warfare agent chloropicrin, which causes genetic damage.</div><div>
</div><div>...</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>11/16</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>https://www.scpr.org/news/2016/11/11/66059/flood-of-spending-by-charter-advocates-leads-to-el/</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Charter school advocates flooded state legislative races with more than $19 million in campaign spending — and mostly got the results they were seeking.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>In seven of eight races where charter advocates made at least $900,000 in "independent expenditures," the candidate they supported will advance to Sacramento. That's according to a KPCC review of election results and campaign finance records.</div><div>
</div><div>Richard Garcia of the California Charter Schools Association Advocates said those millions of dollars were money well spent.</div><div>
</div><div>"It seems that the voters recognized what we recognized in these candidates," Garcia said. "It's a big win for those who value their right to choice in education."</div><div>
</div><div>Garcia's group is linked to the Parent Teacher Alliance, one of the two main charter spenders. The other big spender was EdVoice's independent expenditure committee. The two groups spent a combined $18.4 million trying to get their favored candidates to seats in Sacramento.</div><div>
</div><div>In fact, EdVoice and the Parent Teacher Alliance were the number one and two outside spenders in state legislative races, beating out groups backed by political heavyweights like the oil industry and developers.</div><div>
</div><div>If you add an additional $930,000 from two smaller pro-charter committees — Parents and Teachers for Student Success and CCSA Advocates's independent expenditure group — the total reaches $19.4 million from charter groups. The money they spend is separate from actual candidates' campaigns.</div><div>
</div><div>RELATED: Election results in the races charter groups targeted</div><div>
</div><div>Not everyone was on board with the charter groups' aims.</div><div>
</div><div>Their one big defeat came in the 27th Assembly District, representing the San Jose area. There, the Parent Teacher Alliance dumped more than $4 million into an effort to elect Madison Nguyen — the most any group spent in a single race.</div><div>
</div><div>Yet San Jose city councilman Ash Kalra defeated Nguyen in that race. A union group was active there, pouring more than $1.2 million into the contest, which funded a big chunk of negative spending against Nguyen.</div><div>
</div><div>That dynamic was flipped in the 14th Assembly District, where charter-backed Tim Grayson cruised to victory. EdVoice spent $3.3 million in that race supporting Grayson and opposing the union-backed Mae Torlakson. Her husband is the state's top K-12 education official, Superintendent Tom Torlakson.</div><div>
</div><div>In a Southern California race, charter-backed Laura Friedman easily beat challenger Ardy Kassakhian to represent Glendale, Burbank and parts of Los Angeles.</div><div>
</div><div>In most of the races where charter groups spent big, two Democrats were fighting for a single seat. In essence, voters were deciding what kind of Democrat to send to Sacramento.</div><div>
</div><div>EdVoice and the PTA spent to make sure they were charter-friendly democrats, in a legislature that could feature a democratic supermajority.</div><div>
</div><div>Rob Pyers, who analyzes elections for the California Target Book, said that all the outside spending seemed to have an impact. While it's still early, Pyers said that "in the vast majority of circumstances, spending...closely correlated with the odds of success."</div><div>
</div><div>The complexity of elections and privacy of the polls make it difficult to say exactly how much political spending — or any single factor — impacts elections.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>The pivot this year to statewide policy for represents a shift for education reformers, who previously had focused on local school boards. The implications for education policy in the state are still coming into focus.</div><div>
</div><div>With a crop of friendly legislators on their way to Sacramento, CCSA Advocates' Garcia said his group has two areas of focus. The first is changing the process of getting new charters approved, known commonly as charter school authorization. Currently, decisions are made at the local level by school boards, with inconsistent support for charters.</div><div>
</div><div>Garcia also emphasized access to school district facilities for charters. "Facilities issues have been problematic for us," he said.</div><div>
</div><div>At L.A. Unified, charter backers have grown frustrated with what they perceive as an increasingly hostile environment.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-edu-school-election-money-20170521-htmlstory.html</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Charter school supporters and unions spent nearly $15 million to battle each other in last week's Los Angeles Board of Education races, which crossed the finish line as the most expensive school board election in U.S. history.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.alternet.org/kicking-charter-money-out-unifying-party</div><div>
</div><div>The&nbsp; mood was festive at the annual Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Dinner in Los Angeles. About 600 Democrats gathered in a hotel ballroom on an October evening to begin wrapping up the year. Community activists and party worker-bees mingled with political luminaries to celebrate top volunteers. Anybody with a (D) after their name and $135 for a ticket was welcome at this event in blue, blue California.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Then Eli Broad crashed the party. He didn’t actually show up, but as usual in Los Angeles, his presence was felt. When his likeness appeared on a video screen displaying sponsors, the place erupted in boos. Then, as if they’d been caught on a hot mic, many attendees gasped at their collective slip of decorum.</div><div>
</div><div>By the time L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti spoke, the room was composed. In fact, Garcetti couldn’t have asked for a friendlier reception. But the hometown crowd turned hostile again when former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was announced. He, too, was booed.</div><div>
</div><div>The common thread between Broad and Villaraigosa is charter schools. After he was elected mayor of L.A. in 2005, Villaraigosa, who’d run on a pro-labor platform, cut ties with the teachers union and adopted Broad’s agenda of school privatization. Los Angeles has long been a target of the privatizers. As the biggest school district in the country that elects its school board, it’s harder to control for the so-called education reformers, who seek to dismantle the public school system in order to create a marketplace of school choices, shifting billions of dollars in public moneys into private hands.&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Villairagosa’s political calculation paid off—at least with the billionaire education reform crowd which has been pouring money into Villaraigosa’s gubernatorial bid.</div><div>
</div><div>The Roosevelt Dinner should have been a victory lap for Villairagosa and his allies. Just six months before, they’d successfully taken over the L.A. school board, an effort in which the former mayor had been personally involved. They had spent more money to win the seat held by board president Steve Zimmer than has ever been spent on a school board race in U.S. history.</div><div>
</div><div>Backlash builds</div><div>But the huge sums of money made people skeptical of the pure-sounding claims of “putting students first.” Signs of a backlash first appeared at the State Democratic Convention last spring. In convention speeches, references to the vast resources of the charter school lobby made it sound like an occupying force. Speakers pointed out that the staggering amount of money to buy charter school proponents control of L.A.’s school board was sounding less and less democratic. It went beyond school boards, too. Last year, the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) was the biggest spender in state legislative races.</div><div>
</div><div>The awakening has been a long time coming. Five years have passed since the L.A. County Dems demanded that the deceptively named charter promoters, Democrats for Education Reform, cease and desist from calling themselves Democrats. Since then, Betsy DeVos has finished yanking the Democratic disguise off the charter agenda. On NPR affiliate KCRW in early December, stalwart conservative David Frum lumped charter schools in with “medical savings accounts and everything else in the Republican agenda” that Democrats oppose.</div><div>
</div><div>And now, spontaneous outbursts showed Democrats opposing the biggest names in corporate education reform. But the clash between charter schools and Democratic ideals still isn’t obvious to everyone.</div><div>
</div><div>Glowing conflict</div><div>
</div><div>Perhaps there is no stronger metaphor for Democrats’ conflict about charters than the swag at the state party convention. During caucus meetings and on the floor of the convention, candidates and delegates alike balked at the CCSA’s brazenness in buying electoral influence. But afterhours, many of them waved glowsticks featuring the CCSA logo at the parties throughout the weekend. Maybe they thought no one would notice who bought them.</div><div>
</div><div>But the power of charter money is noticeable. At a State Senate hearing in October about possible charter law reforms, Jackie Goldberg, a retired grand dame of progressive politics and public education in California, seemed to hammer the whole state Democratic caucus for its failure to provide oversight.</div><div>
</div><div>“You got two-thirds [majority] for the first time—I never had two-thirds when I was up there—in both houses! You actually can do something about this. And I’m saying to you, it is time to say, Ya basta! Enough is enough…”</div><div>
</div><div>If California Democrats are calibrating their relationship with big charter money, the 2018 elections could magnify the issue. Villaraigosa will be the likely recipient of the charter cash.</div><div>
</div><div>However, Gavin Newsom, the current lieutenant governor and unquestioned front runner, is doing his best to avoid the topic. Newsom was caught on videotelling a friendly crowd that he had no intention of taking a position on the existential battle in public education.</div><div>
</div><div>“I'm not interested in a stale and raging debate around which side...you're on. ‘Are you with the charter people or are you anti-charter? Are you with the teachers or are you anti-teacher?’ I've been hearing that damned debate for ten damned years…whether Eli Broad was right or whether the CTA was wrong [sic]. I'm not interested in that debate.”</div><div>
</div><div>Previous news reports might help explain Newsom’s reticence to speak up against charters. Some of the original money to launch Newsom’s gubernatorial bid came from the same dark charter figures who schemed with Eli Broad to unsuccessfully defeat Proposition 30, Governor Jerry Brown’s initiative to fund public schools through a tax on millionaires. The schemers included one of Newsom’s early donors, John Scully, who sits with his wife on the board of Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy, the politically powerful charter chain that was the recent subject of an exposé in the New Yorker. The union helped unmask Scully in its 2016 bombshell Hedge Clippers report revealing supporters of the anti-Prop 30 campaign, but it is now apparently unconcerned with Scully’s support for Newsom.</div><div>
</div><div>Big money, big opposition</div><div>
</div><div>Its anybody-but-Villaraigosa campaign resulted in the union endorsing Newsom, opening the organization to criticism that it isn’t going to help fight big charter power. Half the union delegates pushed for the candidate with a track record of working to pass common sense charter oversight legislation, current State Treasurer John Chiang. But some union delegates said leaders made sure endorsing Chiang was procedurally impossible.</div><div>
</div><div>Polls show 30% of the electorate is still undecided among the crowded field for the June, 2018 primary. So why isn’t CTA playing a more active role in shaping the debate about charter money during the course of the election?</div><div>
</div><div>The job of making charter money a campaign issue might fall to the teacher activists who led the insurgency for John Chiang at the union’s endorsement meeting. It could also fall to the Berniecrats, who now make up half the California Democratic Party and who strongly oppose the influence of big money. However, their repeated chants of “Single payer now!” at the convention and other public events leave one wondering if they have the capacity or the interest to take on the charter issue. Activist Lauren Steiner who ran the L.A. for Bernie campaign, pushes the issue among the Bernie constituency, though many of them are backing Delaine Eastin.</div><div>
</div><div>Given all the signs in the past year that Democrats are down on corporate charter money and Berniecrats’ natural opposition to big money in politics, this could be a unifying issue between the two factions of the party. The implications of that would reach far beyond California.</div><div>
</div><div>Karen Wolfe writes about public education</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>nov 2012</div><div>
</div><div>California’s new Democratic supermajority will be sorely tempted to raise taxes and fees across the board, which I have earlier suggested is a bad idea politically.&nbsp; But that hardly means that it should reject new revenues altogether, and the easiest place to start would be an oil severance tax.</div><div>
</div><div>The oil severance tax works exactly like it sounds: it taxes producers based upon the barrels of oil they take out of the ground.&nbsp; California is one of the few oil producing states that lacks such a tax, mainly because of the 2/3 rule and nearly $100 million that the oil industry poured into defeating Proposition 87 on the 2006 ballot.&nbsp; California does have an “Oil and Gas Production Assessment,” but that does not exist to raise revenue: it is calculated based upon the budget of the Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, and is far smaller than a genuine assessment tax.&nbsp; By way of comparison, the state production assessment is roughly 8 cents a barrel: Sarah Palin’s Alaska charges 25% per barrel, which goes into the Alaska Permanent Fund.</div><div>
</div><div>During the Proposition 87 fight, the oil industry charged that Proposition 87 would significantly increase gasoline prices — a nonsensical assertion, because oil is priced in the international market, not locally.&nbsp; The incidence of the tax, then, would fall heavily upon producers.&nbsp; (Proposition 87 also forbade producers from passing on the cost to consumers, a prohibition whose enforcement was not clear.).</div><div>
</div><div>That said, it is certainly plausible that a severance tax would in some way reduce private economic activity, because it would reduce producers’ profit margin.&nbsp; That’s why the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education included an assessment of the oil severance tax as part of a recent report on state finances.&nbsp; It concluded, using a legislative proposal as a baseline, that:</div><div>
</div><div>An oil severance tax could raise $1.4 billion annually, based on Assembly analysis of AB 1604.&nbsp; We estimate such a tax would reduce economic output by $128 million, decrease state and local tax revenue by $9 million and result in the loss of 400 full-time equivalent jobs.&nbsp; California is the only major oil-producing state without a severance tax. The proposed severance tax rate of 10 percent in California compares to a rate of 25 percent in Alaska.</div><div>
</div><div>Note here that (as far as I can tell), the job loss is the cost based on the tax itself.&nbsp; So if the state uses those revenues to hire more teachers, or fire fighters, or home care workers, that number would be significantly reduced or even reversed.&nbsp; The question, then, turns on whether someone believes that public sector (or public-sector-supported) jobs are “real” jobs.&nbsp; I do, and obviously so do the majority of Californians, who voted for Proposition 30 on last week’s ballot.</div><div>
</div><div>Targeted taxes like an oil severance tax are extremely hard to pass through the initiative process, because those affected by it have an overwhelming incentive to fight them with everything they have.&nbsp; They are better accomplished by the Legislature.&nbsp; Now is the time.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>recent hist</div><div>
</div><div>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severance_tax_legislative_history_in_California</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>may 2015&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-steyer-oil-tax-gas-prices-20150515-story.html</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Wealthy Bay Area environmentalist Tom Steyer, who for weeks has been lambasting oil companies about gasoline prices, said Friday he was exploring another potential cudgel against the industry: ballot measures to tax oil extraction and require more public disclosure on pricing and supply.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Laying the groundwork for a possible ballot battle next year, Steyer said he was attending this weekend’s state Democratic convention in Anaheim to “talk to a bunch of people and see where they put this in their priorities.”</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>ADVERTISING</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>inRead invented by Teads</div><div>
</div><div>Ballot measures would require a “broad coalition” of support to be viable, he said.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Steyer, a former hedge fund manager, declined to say whether he might spend the millions of dollars it would take to get such proposals on the ballot and run a campaign to win voter approval.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>California voters and legislators have a history of rejecting bids to tax oil extraction.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Steyer’s record of spending heavily on political campaigns has made him a nemesis of the oil and gas industry. Last year, Steyer gave $74 million to candidates who pledged to fight global warming.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>He has also flirted with running for political office himself. He recently weighed, and rejected, making a bid to succeed retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). Many political observers consider him a potential gubernatorial contender in 2018.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Meanwhile, he is an increasingly visible force in state politics: testifying in the Legislature, contributing to political campaigns and funding his own advocacy organization, NextGen Climate, which aims to fight climate change “and promote prosperity for all Americans” through political activity.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>He recently called on the state Senate to subpoena industry executives to explain why prices surged in California this spring.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>In Anaheim on Friday, Steyer and Jamie Court, president of the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, released a memo on public opinion about two potential ballot measures.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>One measure would impose a 10% oil extraction tax and dedicate the revenue “to making higher education affordable for California residents.” The other would strengthen “disclosure requirements for oil companies’ management of gasoline supplies and prices.”</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Steyer and Court lamented refinery shutdowns, sometimes for maintenance, that oil companies have cited as a reason for price increases. The pair said there was too little public information about decision-making on the closures.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Some advocates of steps to address climate change have suggested that higher gasoline prices would be a good thing, an incentive to get motorists off the road. Steyer, however, called for lower fuel prices.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>“I want to understand why Californians are paying up to $1 billion more to oil companies per month for gasoline prices than anywhere else in the country,” he said.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>“To me, that’s a question about fairness to working people who have to use their cars to get to work, who don’t have a choice.”</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Sabrina Lockhart, a spokeswoman for Californians for Energy Independence, an advocacy group for oil and gas companies, said, “It’s ironic that a billionaire who is promoting policies that will cause energy prices to rise suddenly cares about what Californians pay at the pump.”</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>An oil extraction tax has been on the ballot before. A 2006 initiative would have imposed a sliding scale tax on oil pumped from the ground to fund a $4-billion alternative energy program.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Proponents spent more than $60 million on the measure, with nearly $50 million coming from a single backer, Hollywood producer Steve Bing. The oil industry countered by spending $90 million and warning that any tax increase would lead to higher prices at the pump. The initiative was defeated.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>At least half a dozen oil severance tax measures have been introduced in the Legislature since 2008; all failed to reach the governor’s desk.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Gov. Jerry Brown has been cool to the idea in the past. Asked last year about a possible levy on oil extraction, he said it was not the time for new taxes.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>And while Brown’s ambitious goals to combat climate change rankle oil companies — particularly his desire to cut motorists’ gasoline use in half within 15 years — his relationship with the industry has not been purely adversarial.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>He has heralded the economic possibilities of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, an extraction technique that critics have decried for its environmental ramifications. He signed a 2013 bill that would regulate, but not halt, the practice.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.thenation.com/article/big-oils-grip-on-california/</div><div>
</div><div>...Perhaps more than any other special interest, the oil industry has helped reshape California’s political landscape, in part by cultivating a relationship with Brown and nourishing a new breed of Democrats: moderate lawmakers who are casting a critical eye on the state’s suite of climate-change policies, including its signature cap-and-trade program, which aims to curb greenhouse gases by penalizing companies that pollute. As a result, the industry saw a spike in production for the first time in nearly two decades, turned back legislative efforts to halve the state’s petroleum usage and overcame calls for a statewide ban on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. In perhaps the biggest sign of oil’s clout, Brown, a liberal icon who made a name for himself as an environmentalist in the 1970s, eased restrictions to clear the path for more drilling. “I don’t think it’s responsible to let Third World countries do the oil production so that Californians can drive around, even in their hybrids,” Brown told Politico in 2015, as he prepared to attend the United Nations climate summit in Paris. “We have to shoulder our part of the responsibility.”</div><div>
</div><div>That business-friendly approach has come at a price. Two and a half years ago, California’s oil regulator acknowledged that it had allowed companies to drill thousands of wells into aquifers—underground reservoirs—that were supposed to be protected as potential sources of drinking water. The US Environmental Protection Agency stepped in to oversee the cleanup. A year later, after a gas leak in the San Fernando Valley forced the evacuation of thousands of residents, state lawmakers blamed lax regulation. It was the largest discharge of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, in American history. The state’s overall carbon emissions have decreased in recent years, but only modestly; industrial pollution from oil and gas development has risen.</div><div>
</div><div>All of this, some environmentalists and lawmakers say, calls into question California’s ability to live up to its reputation as a climate leader.</div><div>
</div><div>Bill McKibben, one of the country’s most prominent climate activists, pointed to the state’s embrace of fracking as a “glaring exception” to an otherwise-impressive environmental record. “There’s no other explanation than the political and financial clout of the oil industry,” he said by e-mail. “Every ton of carbon Occidental [Petroleum] sends into the atmosphere makes it that much harder to imagine a California that survives the droughts of this century.”</div><div>
</div><div>Some specifically fault Brown, who has boasted of “the most aggressive control of oil production and use anywhere in the Western Hemisphere.” In a report last week, a prominent California-based consumer group gave the governor a “dirty” rating for his actions on oil drilling.</div><div>
</div><div>“‘Hypocrite’ is almost too nice of a word. It’s more of a con,” said Adam Scow, state director of Food & Water Watch, which endorsed the report. “Once you start to look at the real policies and the real problems and the fact that we are still the nation’s third-largest oil-producing state, things are not all so rosy here.”</div><div>
</div><div>Lobbyists have so much power in the California Legislature that insiders refer to them as the “third house.” Few groups have more influence than the Western States Petroleum Association, or WSPA (pronounced Wis-Pa), as it’s known in the capital. Founded in 1907 amid the black-gold boom that shaped Southern California, WSPA is the nation’s oldest oil-trade group, representing more than two dozen major companies in five states, including California. Much of its staying power stems from an unrivaled political war chest; it routinely spends more on lobbying than any other special interest in Sacramento—a necessity, its leaders say, because of the oil industry’s “unfortunate and undeserved” negative image, as well as the strong environmental principles of the state’s elected leaders. “Their stated goal is to reduce petroleum use above all else,” WSPA president Catherine Reheis-Boyd said. And with millions of Californians dependent on gasoline-powered vehicles, “the facts dictate us being very much part of that conversation, no matter where California goes.”</div><div>
</div><div>A monument dedicated to oil workers in Taft, California. (Elizabeth Fladung)</div><div>
</div><div>fter 26 years with the trade group, Reheis-Boyd is the soft-spoken public face of the oil industry, backed up by a team of lobbyists. She leads an organization that is decidedly old school: Each winter, it hosts a reception for lawmakers at the upscale Esquire Grill a few blocks from the Capitol building, and continues to wine and dine them throughout the year, often in tandem with its smaller counterpart, the California Independent Petroleum Association, or CIPA. In 2015, for instance, when state lawmakers convened for an annual corporate-sponsored summit in Maui, WSPA treated nine legislators to dinner at Spago, running up a $3,300 tab. The following month, CIPA whisked 22 lawmakers and two candidates to its oil symposium at the Resort at Pelican Hill, a five-star property in Newport Beach overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Two state senators and a Senate candidate enjoyed $300 rounds of golf. The outings are legal under the state’s campaign-finance laws.</div><div>
</div><div>But WSPA’s real influence stems from the millions more its members—including Chevron, California’s third-largest company by revenue—pour into a network of political-action committees—outside groups designed to boost industry allies and target critics under innocuous names such as the Coalition to Restore California’s Middle Class. They run attack ads and send out mailers to influence campaigns as well as legislation. “Unless leadership directly intervenes for a bill, the oil industry can hold it hostage,” said former Assemblyman Das Williams, a Santa Barbara Democrat who chaired the California Assembly’s Natural Resources Committee. “On any given day, they’ve got between six and nine Democrats, in addition to most of the Republicans.” That approaches half the 80-member Assembly, and that bipartisan coalition has established a track record of watering down or blocking climate-related legislation.</div><div>
</div><div>The industry had already changed the rules of legislative debate; in 2010, Chevron was the leading corporate sponsor of a ballot measure to require a two-thirds vote, rather than a simple majority, for state and local governments to enact new fees on businesses.</div><div>
</div><div>When energy-related bills pass the Legislature, WSPA and its members have a hand in how rules are crafted and laws are enforced. Lobbyists pick up meals for regulators at fast-food restaurants, refinery cafeterias, and oceanfront resorts. Oil executives and state regulators meet as an “oil and gas work group” to discuss rule making, and WSPA’s Reheis-Boyd was even appointed to a state panel that helped create marine sanctuaries. Last year, when an assemblyman filed a request to audit the state agency that administers the state’s cap-and-trade program, the Microsoft Word file showed it had a different author: WSPA’s chief lobbyist. The lawmaker’s chief of staff told the Los Angeles Times that the group, like any other special interest, “tend[s] to have the policy expertise when we have questions.”...</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>Receding ice cover in the Arctic ocean could produce more droughts in California, according to a new study.</div><div>
</div><div>Published last week in Nature Communications, the study found that sea ice loss in the Arctic—of the proportion expected in coming years—could set off an atmospheric effect that will steer precipitation away from California. Notably, the study linked Arctic sea ice loss with the development of an atmospheric ridging system that also played a central role in the state's 2012-2016 drought.</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>https://www.ecowatch.com/lawsuit-challenges-trump-administrations-ok-of-corporations-plan-to-drain-california-desert-aquifier-2513542263.html</div><div>
</div><div>Lawsuit Challenges Trump's Approval of Corporation's Plan to Drain California Desert Aquifer</div><div>Conservation and health-safety groups filed suit on Tuesday in federal court challenging the Trump administration's approval of an enormous groundwater-mining and pipeline project in Southern California. The Cadiz water project, approved without environmental review, includes the construction of a pipeline through the Mojave Trails National Monument and other public lands in the area.</div><div>
</div><div>Tuesday's lawsuit notes that the Trump administration reversed two Obama administration decisions and wrongly concluded that the Cadiz project's 43-mile pipeline did not require any federal Bureau of Land Management permits or approvals. The BLM is allowing the developer to build the pipeline within an existing railroad right-of-way, paving the way for Cadiz to pump 16 billion gallons of water a year from the fragile desert aquifer to sprawling new developments in Southern California.</div><div>
</div><div>"The Cadiz project will suck the desert dry while developers count their money," said Ileene Anderson, a senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. "It's an unsustainable water-privatization scheme. Pumping ancient groundwater from the Mojave Desert to water suburban lawns in Orange County will devastate desert wildlife and the entire ecosystem relying on that water for survival."</div><div>
</div><div>If allowed to move forward, the Cadiz water-mining project would drain life-giving springs in the Mojave Trails National Monument and surrounding public lands, killing vegetation and destroying key habitat for a host of desert wildlife, including the threatened desert tortoises, bighorn sheep, Mojave fringe-toed lizards and kit foxes. Hydrologists from the U.S. Geological Survey determined that the Cadiz project is unsustainable and that the company's privately funded study vastly overstates the aquifer's recharge rate.</div><div>
</div><div>"The Trump administration's approval of the Cadiz project is crony capitalism at its worst," said Adam Keats, senior attorney with the Center for Food Safety. "So much life relies on this precious desert groundwater, yet under Trump apparently the only thing that matters is how much money you have and who your friends are in government."</div><div>
</div><div>The project's approval followed the appointment of David Bernhardt, a deputy Interior Department secretary and former lobbyist for Cadiz. Bernhardt's former employer, the Washington-based law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, continues to represent Cadiz.</div><div>
</div><div>"Cadiz, Inc. is just another corporation looking to profit by selling off an irreplaceable public resource," said Greg Loarie, an attorney at Earthjustice who is representing the groups filing suit. "The Trump administration would love to give Cadiz a free pass around our environmental laws, but we're not going to let that happen."</div><div>
</div><div>The Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Food Safety have also filed public records requests for documents that could shed light on the Trump administration's abrupt decision to allow the Cadiz project to move forward. In addition to Earthjustice, the groups are represented by Adam Keats at the Center for Food Safety and Aruna Prabhala and Lisa Belenky at the Center for Biological Diversity.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>Right Out of California: The 1930s and the Big Business Roots of Modern Conservatism, 2015</div><div>
</div><div>https://www.amazon.com/Right-Out-California-Business-Conservatism/dp/1620970961</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>cf cap and trade extnsion</div><div>
</div><div>EJ climate</div><div>
</div><div>san jose: flood, jungle&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.alternet.org/environment/can-california-protect-frontline-communities-climate-change</div><div></div><div>The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knows that dozens of the chemicals used in fracking pose health hazards. The agency not only allows their use, but also lets the oil and gas industry keep the chemicals secret, according to a new report.</div><div>
</div><div>Between 2003 and 2014 the EPA identified health hazards for 41 chemicals used in fracking, according to a report from the Partnership for Policy Integrity and Earthworks, based on documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. Fracking is the injection of a chemical slurry into drilling sites to free up underground oil and gas deposits. Hazards from the chemicals used included irritation to eyes and skin; harm to the liver, kidney and nervous system; and damage to the developing fetus.</div><div>
</div><div>Nonetheless, in most cases, the EPA allowed the chemicals to be manufactured and used without further testing. What's more, the identities of the chemicals are hidden from the public, even though federal law authorizes the EPA to require disclosure of so-called trade secrets if there is unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.</div><div>
</div><div>In response to the report, more than 100 scientists, health professionals and first responders wrote the EPA, asking that it make public the identities of the chemicals known to pose health hazards.</div><div>
</div><div>"Citizens have a right to know what health hazards we are being exposed to, especially when these hazards have been identified by government health assessments ... It is an unreasonable risk for people to be unknowingly exposed to chemicals that EPA, itself, has identified as potentially harmful," said the letter. Signers included Sandra Steingraber, author of Living Downstream and other acclaimed books on environmental health, and Wilma Subra, winner of a MacArthur "genius" award for her work to help vulnerable communities document the health risks of industrial pollution.</div><div>
</div><div>A recent investigation led by the nonprofit group Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Healthy Energyreported that 17.6 million Americans live within a mile of least one active oil or gas well, and could be exposed to toxic chemicals used in oil and gas production. Despite these risks, there are no federal requirements for disclosure of the names and types of toxic chemicals pumped into wells near citizens' backyards. At the state level, California has adopted a comprehensive disclosure program for chemicals used in oil and gas, but most other states still allow protection of trade secrets....</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.ecowatch.com/santa-barbara-offshore-drilling-2465777011.html</div><div>
</div><div>Santa Barbara Becomes First California City to Pass Resolution Against Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling</div><div>
</div><div>The Santa Barbara City Council approved a resolution Tuesday opposing new drilling off the California coast and fracking in existing offshore oil and gas wells. The resolution is the first in a new statewide campaign to rally local governments against proposals to expand offshore fossil fuel extraction in federal waters.</div><div>
</div><div>The vote—which makes Santa Barbara the first California city to oppose both fracking and new offshore drilling—follows President Trump's April 28 executive order urging federal agencies to expand oil and gas leasing in federal waters. The order could expose the Pacific Ocean to new oil leasing for the first time in more than 30 years.</div><div>
</div><div>"I'm thrilled to be part of this community effort to protect natural resources, the water supply and community health," said Santa Barbara City Council member Jason Dominguez, who sponsored the resolution. "At the same time, we can improve our economy, develop green markets, and bring quality jobs and living wages to the area."</div><div>
</div><div>....</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.ecowatch.com/california-sue-big-oil-2461364159.html</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.ecowatch.com/jerry-brown-climate-bill-2461399772.html</div><div>
</div><div>_EJ ab 398 cap & trade 10 yr extension</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>https://www.ecowatch.com/carbon-farming-2457937143.html</div><div>
</div><div>A handful of states around the country have begun to recognize the importance of carbon farming as an expedient tool to fight climate change. What's carbon farming? Eric Toensmeier, author of The Carbon Farming Solution, describes it as "a suite of crops and agricultural practices that sequester carbon in the soil and in perennial vegetation like trees." If carbon farming were widely implemented, it could return billions of tons of carbon from the atmosphere—where there's currently too much, to the soil where there's too little. Carbon in the soil, i.e. soil carbon, becomes a resource that increases food, water and climate security.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Last month, Hawaii became the first state in the nation to pass legislation officially supporting the Paris climate agreement, just days after President Trump announced he was pulling the U.S. out of the global agreement. One of the two landmark laws signed in Hawai'i was an act creating the Carbon Farming Task Force. Written and championed by Hawai'i Center for Food Safety, along with the Sierra Club of Hawai?i and Surfrider Foundation O'ahu Chapter, the task force went into effect July 1 and will develop incentives for Hawai'i's farmers and ranchers to improve the resilience of their lands by increasing the soil's carbon content.</div><div>
</div><div>University of Hawai'i assistant professor of agricultural ecosystem ecology, Rebecca Ryals, believes "Hawai'i's Carbon Farming Task Force is a critically important first step toward finding local solutions to global climate change, and soil carbon farming strategies should be emphasized in its incentive programs."</div><div>
</div><div>Hawai'i is just one of a growing number of states preparing to protect rural livelihoods from the threats posed by climate change by tapping into the multiple benefits of carbon farming. Here are five others:</div><div>
</div><div>1. In May, Maryland established the Maryland Healthy Soils Program introduced by Delegate Dana Stein. Stein's legislation (HB 1063) passed unanimously in the Senate and had the support of both the Maryland Farm Bureau and the soil and climate communities (including thousands of Center for Food Safety members who responded to our action alert in support of the bill). The act, as approved by Gov. Larry Hogan, requires the Maryland Department of Agriculture to provide incentives including research, education and technical assistance contributing to healthy soils.</div><div>
</div><div>2. Massachusetts is right behind Maryland. "An Act to Promote Healthy Soils" (No.3713) presented by Paul A. Schmid III, would establish a fund for education and training for those engaged in agriculture that regenerates soil health. Indicators of healthy soil include levels of carbon, rates of water infiltration and biological activity.</div><div>
</div><div>3. Meanwhile, in New York, Assemblywoman Didi Barrett introduced A3281, a first-of-its-kind bill to use a tax credit model for farmers who maximize carbon sequestration potential on their land. Although the bill did not pass this past year, Barrett was able to incorporate the Carbon Farming Act into the state budget which is providing $50,000 to study incentives for carbon farming tax credits, grants and other programs.</div><div>
</div><div>4. In California the Department of Food and Agriculture has appropriated $7.5 million from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to develop and administer incentive and demonstration programs as part of the state's Healthy Soils Program, actively supported by the California Climate and Agriculture Network, a coalition that includes Center for Food Safety. The objective of the demonstration projects is to monitor and demonstrate to California farmers and ranchers that "specific management practices sequester carbon, improve soil health and reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases." The program includes a variety of practices such as mulching, cover crops, compost application, hedgerow planting and buffer strips.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>5. Finally, in Vermont, after making a successful transition from conventional to regenerative agriculture on their farm, Jesse and Cally McDougall initiated legislation in 2016 to help other farmers transition. Reintroduced in 2017 as S.43 by Vermont State Sen. Brian Campion, the bill:</div><div>
</div><div>Proposes to require the Secretary of Natural Resources to establish a regenerative soils program whose purposes include increasing the carbon sequestration capability of Vermont soils, reducing the amount of sediment and waste entering the waters of the state, and promoting cost-effective and healthy soil management practices.</div><div>
</div><div>While the Vermont bill did not pass this year, Jesse McDougall reports that "it wasn't killed either" and will be taken up again next session. According to this self-described carbon farmer, "There is much interest and energy for it here in Vermont. I think this bill (or a new regenerative bill) has a strong chance next year."</div><div>
</div><div>We expect that McDougall is right. While each state will incentivize soil health differently depending on geography, needs and capacity, there's a strong chance that many more states will get proactive about regenerating the health of their soil and harnessing the potential of carbon farming. With this kind of interest, and momentum generated by public gatherings like the upcoming Soil not Oil conference in September, it won't be long before policies to incentivize carbon farming spread across the nation.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div></div><div></div><div>
</div><div>It's Official: California Lists Key Ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup as Cancer-Causing</div><div>https://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-cancer-2454487516.html</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/21/stories/1060056345</div><div>
</div><div>GOP threatens to sue Calif. over climate rule for insurers</div><div>
</div><div>Benjamin Hulac, E&E News reporter</div><div>
</div><div>Published: Wednesday, June 21, 2017</div><div>
</div><div>Twelve Republican attorneys general and Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R) demanded Monday that the California insurance commissioner halt a program requiring companies to disclose their investments in fossil fuels.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>They called the program misguided and inflammatory, and they threatened to file a lawsuit if it continues to be used. The Republican officials made their demands related to the Climate Risk Carbon Initiative in a letter yesterday to California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Jones announced the climate disclosure effort in January 2016. He said falling coal prices present financial hazards, and he asked insurance companies to "voluntarily" sell their stakes in thermal coal. He also required insurers to turn over data about their fossil fuel investments.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>That has chafed Republicans, who claim that California's requirements are heavy-handed and ideological. They say the program is not about the financial stability of insurers — the traditional jurisdiction of insurance regulators.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>"Rather, your call for divestment and attempt to publicly shame those who invest in American energy appears to be driven by politics unrelated to insurance regulation, animus towards the fossil fuel industry and those who depend on it, and a desire to discriminate against those who transact in commerce that mostly takes place outside your state (e.g. coal mining and coal power generation)," the letter reads.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>If Jones does not end the program, Bevin and the attorneys general said, "we will be forced to consider the legal avenues of relief available to protect our insurance carriers, energy producers, and consumers."</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Jones said threats of lawsuits would not get him to shut down the program.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>"For those climate-denying politicians of red states who threaten to sue me, I will happily defend my obligation as California's insurance commissioner to make sure insurers are addressing climate change related risks and to protect California consumers," he said in a statement.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The interstate spat highlights the massive financial clout California wields in American insurance markets. To do business nationwide, insurers often need to comply with regulations set down by the California Department of Insurance.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The attorneys general of Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wyoming signed the letter.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Representatives for Bevin and Jones did not respond to requests for comment.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>About 650 insurance firms have responded to the disclosure program. More than 300 said they have analyzed their "carbon risk," while 272 declined to do so, according to figures from the California insurance commission.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The data show that insurers surveyed have invested about $240 billion in the oil and gas industry and roughly $10.5 billion in thermal coal.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>"This misguided policy is negligent, politically driven, unrelated to insurance regulation and is risking a certain lawsuit," Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter (R), the letter's author, said in a statement.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Alex Gerszewski, a spokesman for Hunter, said the attorney general has not spoken to Jones about the issue but was motivated by his experience in the energy industry and by his conversations with the Oklahoma insurance commissioner.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Hunter succeeded Scott Pruitt, who now serves as U.S. EPA administrator, as Oklahoma's attorney general earlier this year.</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>https://www.ecowatch.com/california-salmon-extinct-2412724180.html</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Judy Pope <jpope4@gmail.com> wrote:</div><div>Hi folks - it has been a busy week for the climate in Sacramento, with the introduction of two major bills.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>SB 100 is state Senate leader Kevin de Leon’s bill to require 100% clean green electric energy by 2045. This advances the targets previously set. http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article147971884.html</div><div>
</div><div>SB 775 by de Leon and Fremont state Senator Bob Wieckowski is a big deal - an overhaul of the state’s controversial and troubled Cap and Trade program. The bill turns the program into a much bigger deal, both for advancing California’s climate goals and as a model not just nationally but globally.</div><div>
</div><div>I’ll let my favorite writer on climate, Dave Roberts, tell the story. I highly recommend reading this article. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/3/15512258/california-revolutionize-cap-and-trade</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>may 1</div><div>
</div><div>http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2017/05/01/californias-clean-energy-leadership-continues/</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>California is a leader, and has earned that title – it is the largest state economy in the U.S. and the sixth-largest economy in the world.&nbsp; Forward-thinking clean energy policies are the backbone of California’s prosperity, creating jobs and businesses for the state while cutting emissions. While the presidential administration assaults critical environmental protections nationwide, clean energy momentum is unstoppable. California’s leadership is committed and poised to move forward.</div><div>
</div><div>Energy policy drives economic growth</div><div>
</div><div>Most energy policy is done at the state level, reflecting that energy management is a fundamental concern for local residents and their livelihoods. How we make, move, and use power can create jobs and protect citizens’ rights to clean air and energy choice. The following bills currently in front of the California State Legislature illuminate the state’s path forward:</div><div>
</div><div>SB 584 (De Leon) – This bill proposes increasing our current Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) – a requirement that utilities meet half of sales with clean, renewable energy sources – to 100 percent. While the means are still being determined, the ambitious spirit of 100 percent is clear. As California’s leaders consider how best to reach a 100 percent renewable energy goal, they should consider investing in and developing a variety of clean energy options that can ensure the grid stays clean, balanced, and reliable.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>SB 356 (Skinner) – This bill increase access to data about the whole energy system. Information makes it easier for businesses to develop and deploy new clean energy technologies and help bring clean-tech jobs to the forefront of our economy. It also ensures the state will have important information about the energy use of its buildings and properties.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>AB 726 (Holden) – This bill takes advantage of smart meter technologies by requiring utilities to notify customers before their bills get too high, thereby avoiding “unpleasant surprises.” Through this increase in information, customers can become more active participants in their energy usage and reduce their costs.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>SB 366 (Leyva) – SB 366 helps ensure all our communities are able to take part in the clean energy revolution and reap the benefits of lower electricity costs and cleaner air. Specifically, it clears the way for community solar projects in disadvantaged communities and supports well-paying green-collar jobs through local training programs. Unlocking community solar is a key to helping communities overcome physical and economic barriers (like not owning your home or not being able to afford the upfront costs of solar) to accessing clean energy.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>AB 1431 (Arambula) – AB 1431 will increase access and participation in energy efficiency, weatherization, and renewable energy programs for low-income, disadvantaged communities. It creates a comprehensive database to track program participation and a working group in which state agencies and stakeholders can exchange views on how to make these programs better and increase participation. This combination of data and dialogue will allow for a comprehensive analysis of all related state clean energy efforts.</div><div>In some ways, how we bring these resources onto the grid is as important as the resources themselves.</div><div>
</div><div>Big, bold benefits of renewable integration</div><div>
</div><div>Not only do renewables create clean-economy benefits, so does renewable integration. In some ways, how we bring these resources onto the grid is as important as the resources themselves. A thoughtful approach to incorporating increasing levels of renewables includes establishing a strong, diverse portfolio of clean energy resources.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>ref</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>More than 25 U.S. cities, 12 countries, and at least 89 companies have all committed to transition to 100 percent renewable energy. That’s because they all recognize the unstoppable potential clean energy has to create jobs, strengthen and protect the economy, and fight climate change.</div><div>Now, U.S. states are throwing their hats into the 100-percent renewable ring. California and Massachusetts have proposed plans to get there, while Hawaii has made the pledge. This 100-percent dream does not come from fantasy, but is actually the result of a number of coalescing factors.</div><div>
</div><div>Earth Day is our time to recognize what’s more: With the right mix of clean energy technologies and solutions, 100 percent renewable is 100 percent possible.</div><div>
</div><div>100 percent is possible</div><div>
</div><div>Cost competitive and scalable renewable energy has taken off over the past 10 to 20 years. The hungry solar market in California for example, has resulted in exponential growth of utility-scale and rooftop solar over the last decade, creating over 150,000 jobs throughout the Golden State.</div><div>
</div><div>Recently, California powered 40 percent of its midday energy demand with solar power. A steady stream of policy actions at the state and local level – timed with the dramatic drop in costs of renewables – have helped make this possible. Across the U.S., current RPS policies alone could result in these benefits:</div><div>
</div><div>Renewables contributing 40 percent of total electricity generation in the U.S. by 2050;</div><div>Reducing climate change-causing greenhouse gases and harmful air pollutants like SOx and NOx (which together form ozone) by 6 percent; and</div><div>An almost 20 percent increase in jobs.</div><div>The bold inspiration, urgency, and benefit of 100 percent renewables is without question, but the pathway for getting there is less clear and will vary by state and region.</div><div>
</div><div>Making 100 percent work</div><div>
</div><div>Let’s take California as an example, especially since it is currently considering a 100 percent renewable portfolio standard. California’s electricity sector currently accounts for a fifth of the greenhouse gas emissions produced in the state. Thanks to legislation passed last year, the sector must reduce those emissions by 40 percent. The state’s current 50 percent RPS is a hugely important piece to achieving those reductions.</div><div>
</div><div>Yet, as California’s leaders consider higher RPS targets, they must simultaneously invest in and develop a variety of resource, policy, and market solutions to ensure the grid stays clean, balanced, and reliable....</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>http://www.sierraclub.org/san-francisco-bay/blog/2017/03/will-bay-area-air-regulators-keep-promises-stop-rise-refinery</div><div>Putting in place local regulation of refinery emissions has been an uphill battle, even here in the Bay Area. For this reason we are counting on the support of Governor Brown and other state-level climate regulators. We have heard Governor Brown’s promises to defend California’s climate policies and programs against the encroachments of Trump’s administration. What will be his stand on rulemaking at our local Air District?</div><div>
</div><div>In December, at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, Brown declared, “We’ve got the scientists, we’ve got the lawyers, and we’re ready to fight.” Also in December, the Governor’s office and the state Air Resources Board (CARB) committed to producing a public letter affirming the authority of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to adopt Rule 12-16, and stating that there are absolutely no conflicts between Rule 12-16 and California cap-and-trade and other climate programs (an argument put forward by the oil industry). But this letter is now long delayed. It is urgently needed prior to the community workshops on refinery rules at the end of March. Will CARB and the Governor’s office come through?</div><div>
</div><div></div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://www.ecowatch.com/shell-dow-chemical-drinking-water-2355598384.html</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Shell, Dow Hid Cancer-Causing Chemical in Pesticides, Contaminating Drinking Water for Millions</div><div>
</div><div>For decades, Shell and Dow hid a highly potent cancer-causing chemical in two widely used pesticides, contaminating drinking water for millions of people in California and beyond, according to lawsuits detailed in a new report from the Environmental Working Group (EWG).</div><div>
</div><div>The chemical 1,2,3-trichloropropane or TCP, was formerly an unwanted and ineffective byproduct in Dow's Telone and Shell's D-D pesticides. Internal documents uncovered in lawsuits filed by communities in California's San Joaquin Valley show that the companies saved millions of dollars a year by not properly disposing of TCP, a chemical a Dow scientist once called "garbage," as hazardous waste.</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.alternet.org/education/california-taxpayers-spent-100s-millions-charter-schools-communities-didnt-need-and-then</div><div>
</div><div>A&nbsp; blockbuster report detailing how California’s charter school industry has wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars by opening and building schools in communities that don't need them and often end up doing worse than nearby public schools, is a nationwide warning about how education privateers hijack public funds and harm K-12 public schools.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>“This report finds that this funding [building, buying, leasing] is almost completely disconnected from educational policy objectives, and the results are, in turn, scattershot and haphazard,” the report's executive summary begins. “Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent each year without any meaningful strategy. Far too much of this public funding is spent on schools built in neighborhoods that have no need for additional classroom space, and which offer no improvement over the quality of education already available in nearby public schools. In the worst cases, public facilities funding has gone to schools that were found to have discriminatory enrollment policies and others that have engaged in unethical or corrupt practices.”</div><div>
</div><div>The report, "Spending Blind: The Failure of Policy Planning in California Charter School Funding," was written by the University of Oregon’s Gordon Lafer for In The Public Interest, a research and policy center based in Oakland, California.</div><div>
</div><div>Its findings are significant on national and statewide levels, especially since California has more charter schools than any other state and the Trump administration has proposed spending $20 billion for a range of “school choice” initiatives, from charter public schools to tuition vouchers for religious schools or to subsidize home schooling. Charter schools are privately run K-12 schools and have become an industry dominated by corporate franchises seeking rapid growth.</div><div>
</div><div>The school reform template embraced by the Trump administration’s K-12 privatization agenda would use many of the same fiscal devices and tax-based incentives the new report has documented as wasting California taxpayer funds and harming nearby traditional schools.</div><div>
</div><div>Frogs Made Famous by Mark Twain Are Finally Laying Eggs Again also Rare Species Discovered Breeding in Santa Monica Mountains, also Yosemite see [https://ic.ucsc.edu/college8core/c8wi</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>Want to toss out pollution-fighting rules? You’ll have to face California first.</div><div>The sunshine state is ready to fight for its auto emissions standards.</div><div>
</div><div>http://grist.org/article/want-to-toss-out-pollution-fighting-rules-youll-have-to-face-california-first/</div><div>
</div><div>... quick history lesson: When legislators wrote the 1963 Clean Air Act, they acknowledged that California already had pollution-fighting rules, and that its environmental situation was especially dire. So they gave the state the right to write its own, stricter standards.</div><div>
</div><div>“It’s hard to overstate how important the ability for California to set its standards has been to public health and clean air over the past 40 years,” says Don Anair, deputy director for the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Time and again, California’s been willing and able to move forward.”</div><div>
</div><div>From unleaded gasoline to catalytic converters to counting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions in vehicle standards, the Golden State has played a key role. That’s because, as Therese Langer, transportation program director at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, puts it, “California doesn’t just mean California.” Even though California is the only state that can write its own rules, under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, any state looking for more than the federal package of regulations can opt to follow California’s auto standards.</div><div>
</div><div>Today, 13 (mostly northeastern) states and Washington, D.C., have adopted California’s extra-stringent emissions standards. Nine states also follow Cali’s mandate that automakers sell zero-emission vehicles. Together, they account for nearly 30 percent of new car sales in the country — and no carmaker wants to build “California cars” and “rest of the world cars.” Result: “All cars meet the California standard,” says Rebecca Lindland, an analyst at Kelley Blue Book.</div><div>
</div><div>But if American carmakers are good at anything, it’s complaining about regulations that demand it produce cleaner, more efficient cars. The anti-regulation, climate change–doubting Trump administration seems to sympathize. But California’s waiver makes it hard for the feds to weaken anything. Trump’s team could have the EPA review the standards that govern cars through 2025, standards the agency finalized just a week before Obama left office. It would take years, likely face a legal challenge, and would require the EPA prove all the scientific data supporting its original decision is no longer valid.</div><div>
</div><div>And even if the EPA won, the California exemption would still hold, and carmakers would still have to make cars that met it. So you can see why the Golden State is a key target. The New York Times reports: “Automakers are also hopeful that the new EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, will begin legal action to revoke California’s ability to enforce its tailpipe standards.” Asked in his Senate confirmation hearing if he would leave the waiver process alone, Pruitt said, “I don’t know without going through the process to determine that. One would not want to presume the outcome.”</div><div>
</div><div>Good news for environmental cheerleaders: Stripping California of its special status would require a change to the Clean Air Act — the kind of legislating a Democratic filibuster could derail.</div><div>
</div><div>But, you say, the EPA doesn’t have to kill the waiver process if it just refuses to issue any new ones. It might even have the legal right to rescind already granted waivers. But California can fight back — and it’s got a stocked arsenal.</div><div>
</div><div>“The statute is very clear. It says EPA shall grant the waiver,” says Cara Horowitz, co-executive director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA School of Law. The EPA can only hit the reject button if it can prove a requested rule is weaker than the federal standards, isn’t consistent with the Clean Air Act, or “does not need such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.” Through the 1990s, Los Angeles smog conditions were severe enough to cancel after-school sports and flood emergency rooms — compelling and extraordinary. Today, the motivating threat is climate change.</div><div>
</div><div>All that matters, because if Scott Pruitt’s EPA starts rejecting new waivers or revoking old ones, California can mount a legal challenge. “I have no doubt that California would litigate, would sue EPA,” says Horowitz. Indeed, Gov. Jerry Brown pledged his state would defend its environmental and social programs. “California is not turning back,” he said in a January speech. “Not now, not ever.”</div><div>
</div><div>What if Trump does start rolling back standards? “We’ll see them in court,” says Roland Hwang, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s energy and transportation program.</div><div>
</div><div>California has on its side decades of legal precedent built from technical analysis. The EPA has outright rejected just one waiver out of nearly 100. That was in 2007, when the state wanted to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles. The EPA said nope, the auto industry celebrated, and California prepared a lawsuit, but the Obama Administration swept in before the case played out. In May 2009, President Obama announced a settlement of sorts: the EPA — not just California — would include GHGs in new standards, and the (recently bailed out) auto industry would deliver cleaner cars.</div><div>
</div><div>With a new face in the White House, the auto industry seems willing to renege on that peace treaty. And California seems ready to go to war.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://www.globalpossibilities.org/california-wants-to-hire-epa-staffers-who-are-sick-of-trump/</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>California is the first U.S. state to require Monsanto to label its blockbuster weed killer, Roundup, as a possible carcinogen, according to a ruling issued Friday by a California judge.</div><div>
</div><div>Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan previously issued a tentative ruling on Jan. 27 in Monsanto Company v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, et al.</div><div>
</div><div>Judge Kapetan formalized her ruling Friday against Monsanto, which will allow California to proceed with the process of listing glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as a chemical "known to the state to cause cancer" in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Proposition 65.</div><div>
</div><div>In January of 2016, Monsanto filed a lawsuit against the State of California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) over the agency's notice of intent to list glyphosate as a Prop 65 chemical.</div><div>
</div><div>OEHHA issued the notice after the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a report on glyphosate, which classified the chemical as a "probable human carcinogen." The IARC report compelled OEHHA to list glyphosate as a Prop 65 chemical and warn consumers about the possible danger associated with glyphosate exposure.</div><div>
</div><div>Why Did Monsanto Sue the State of California?</div><div>In 1986, California voters approved Proposition 65 to address concerns about exposure to toxic chemicals. Prop 65 requires California to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.</div><div>
</div><div>OEHHA is the administrator for the Proposition 65 program and determines in many cases whether chemicals or other substances meet the scientific and legal requirements to be placed on the Proposition 65 list. The agency uses a "Labor Code" listing mechanism, which directs the OEHHA to add chemicals or substances to the Prop 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer if they meet certain classifications by the IARC.</div><div>
</div><div>Monsanto's lawsuit against OEHHA argued that the statutory basis underlying the agency's action to list glyphosate as a Prop 65 chemical violates both the California and U.S. Constitutions. According to the complaint, listing glyphosate as chemical known to the state to cause cancer cedes regulatory authority to an "unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, and foreign body" that isn't subject to oversight by California or the United States.</div><div>
</div><div>Though, according Judge Kapetan ruling:</div><div>
</div><div>"… the Labor Code listing mechanism does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of authority to an outside agency, since the voters and the legislature have established the basic legislative scheme and made the fundamental policy decision with regard to listing possible carcinogens under Proposition 65, and then allowed the IARC to make the highly technical fact-finding decisions with regard to which specific chemicals would be added to the list.</div><div>
</div><div>"As Monsanto admits, the IARC's list is not created in response to the Labor Code listing mechanism or Proposition 65, and in fact IARC has stated that it disavows any policy or rulemaking role, and that it does not intend its determinations to carry the force of law."</div><div>
</div><div>In the months that followed, a number of interested nonparties joined the lawsuit as "intervenors," either on behalf of Monsanto or on behalf of the State of California. When a case has the potential to affect the rights of interested nonparties (individuals or organizations not named in the lawsuit), they can become intervenors, effectively joining the litigation either as a matter of right or at the court's discretion without the permission of the original litigants. Intervention simply gives nonparties that could be affected by a case's outcome a chance to be heard.</div><div>
</div><div>Below are the intervenors in Monsanto Company v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, et al.</div><div>
</div><div>Monsanto Intervenors:</div><div>
</div><div>California Citrus Mutual</div><div>Western Agricultural Processors Association (WAPA)</div><div>California Cotton Ginners and Growers Associations</div><div>California Grain & Feed Association</div><div>Almond Alliance of California</div><div>Western Plant Health Association</div><div>OEHHA Intervenors:</div><div>
</div><div>Center for Food Safety</div><div>Sierra Club</div><div>United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (AFL-CIO, CLC)</div><div>Natural Resources Defense Council</div><div>Environmental Law Foundation</div><div>Canadian Labor Congress</div><div>Teri McCall is one of many California residents to cheer the ruling against Monsanto. Her husband, Jack, sprayed Roundup on the family's Cambia, California farm for nearly 30 years. In September 2015, Jack went to see a doctor to treat swollen lymph nodes in his neck. That day in the hospital, he learned that the swelling was caused by anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), a rare and aggressive version of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21022017/california-clean-energy-electric-grid-solar-wind-climate-change</div><div>
</div><div>California's Senate leader has introduced legislation that would require the state to draw all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2045. If passed, the bill would make the nation's largest state the second to commit to a carbon-free grid.</div><div>
</div><div>State Sen. Kevin de Leon, a Democrat, introduced the bill last week as a placeholder ahead of a filing deadline, with more detailed language to come, spokesman Anthony Reyes said in an email.</div><div>
</div><div>The legislation makes California the latest in a small number of states this year to propose dramatically ramping up renewable energy, even as President Donald Trump stresses primarily fossil fuels in his energy plan.</div><div>
</div><div>In January, lawmakers in Massachusetts filed legislation that would go even further, requiring fossil fuel-free electricity by 2035, and asking the same from other sectors, including transportation and heating, by 2050.</div><div>
</div><div>Last week, a Nevada lawmaker introduced a bill that would update that state's portfolio standard to require 80 percent renewables by 2040. The current standard calls for 25 percent by 2025.</div><div>
</div><div>Of the 29 states with renewable portfolio standards, only Hawaii has set a target for reaching 100 percent, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Hawaii's deadline is 2045.</div><div>
</div><div>De Leon's bill would also advance by five years, to 2025, California's existing target to hit 50 percent of electricity from renewable energy.</div><div>
</div><div>The state is already well on its way. The California Energy Commission says the state got about 27 percent of its electricity from renewables last year, slightly better than the 25 percent required by law. Capacity has more than doubled over the past decade. California's largest utilities have also said they are ahead of schedule for meeting their 2020 goal.</div><div>
</div><div>With Republicans now in control of Congress and the White House, California's Democratic political leaders appear to be readying themselves for a fight. The day after Trump's victory in November, de Leon issued a joint statement with Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, also a Democrat, promising to defend the state's progressive policies from any changes at the federal level.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>DN tag</div><div>
</div><div>https://www.democracynow.org/topics/california</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>1/17</div><div>
</div><div>The head of the city department that drafts many of San Francisco’s greenest rules and regulations uses one word to explain her greatest fear for the environment during Donald Trump’s presidency: “preemption.”</div><div>
</div><div>If some of the deepest concerns of climate-focused bureaucrats from San Francisco to Massachusetts and New York come true, the Trump administration will preemptively prevent them from acting to slow global warming.</div><div>
</div><div>With Trump and Republicans in Congress widely expected to unite to undermine federal environmental protections, progressive states and cities are making plans to fight global warming within their borders without being helped or required to do so by the U.S. government.</div><div>
</div><div>“Preemption is probably the progressive cities’ worst nightmare,” said Deborah Raphael, director of San Francisco’s environment department, which has helped city lawmakers craft rules mandating everything from greener buildings to composting and recycling by residents. “It’s also the state of California’s worst nightmare.”</div><div>
</div><div>The term “preemption” doesn’t describe a single legislative or regulatory tool. The word describes a concept, in which the federal government or a state imposes restrictions on the rules and programs that governments operating beneath it are allowed to implement.</div><div>
</div><div>Conservative lawmakers in North Carolina used a preemption law last year to outlaw transgender protections in Charlotte. In Michigan, cities and counties were barred from banning plastic bags. Colorado prevents local governments from banning fracking.</div><div>
</div><div>With Republicans about to control both houses of Congress and the White House, environmental experts are warning of battles ahead over potential federal preemptions.</div><div>
</div><div>“There really is virtually no aspect of federal regulation of the natural environment or health that’s not at risk of preemption now,” said Mark Pertschuk, a lawyer and activist with the nonprofit Grassroots Change, which tracks state preemptions of local rules affecting gun safety, paid sick days, factory farming and other issues. “Federal laws almost always trump state and local laws.”</div><div>
</div><div>It’s difficult to predict when, how or whether the federal government will wield any tools of preemption to bar cities and states from enforcing their own environmental rules. Nonetheless, governments across the country are bracing for new restrictions. California’s decision to hire Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder Jr., showed it’s preparing to fight for state rights in court.</div><div>
</div><div>“Everything is speculative right now,” said Cooper Martin, a sustainability official at the National League of Cities, which represents cities in state capitols and on Capitol Hill. Based on Trump’s anti-environmental cabinet nominees and his rhetoric on climate change, which he has falsely called a hoax, Martin said fears of federal preemption are “certainly well founded.”</div><div>
</div><div>“It’s just the nature of the political landscape that this hasn’t been an issue on climate, at least in the last eight years,” Martin said, referring to the length of Obama’s presidency. “It was certainly an issue prior to that.”</div><div>
</div><div>Clean car rules in California, which are unpopular with oil companies and auto manufacturers, offer what may be the clearest opportunity for federal preemption. Other rules that could be blocked relate to appliance efficiency standards, power plant pollution, fossil fuel exports and safe disposal of pharmaceuticals. Local governments that have spent federal transportation funds on cycling and transit initiatives could be prevented from doing so in the future.</div><div>
</div><div>“Programs that allow cities to invest in bike and pedestrian infrastructure, or that allow cities to invest in transit, have all become more popular, particularly in the larger cities,” Martin said. “We want to make sure that there’s flexibility for the cities that do choose to go down this path.”</div><div>
</div><div>The Clean Air Act allows California to enforce stricter standards on car pollution than the federal government. It also allows other states to adopt California’s rules. But to do so, California needs a waiver from the EPA. When George W. Bush was president, the EPA refused to issue such a waiver, which was eventually granted after Obama became president.</div><div>
</div><div>Trump’s nominee to lead the EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, has repeatedly sued the agency, arguing that federal pollution rules violate state rights. Now he might lead a charge to limit the rights of states to enforce their own pollution rules to slow climate change.</div><div>
</div><div>Within days of Trump’s election, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers sent the president-elect a letter arguing that the “regulatory friction” caused by two sets of car pollution standards is “driving up vehicle costs.” The automakers implored Trump to eliminate California’s far-reaching clean car rules through what they call “harmonization” with federal regulations.</div><div>
</div><div>“We could see the U.S. EPA refuse to grant future waivers; there’s even been some talk that they could try to strip away existing waivers,” said Bill Magavern, the policy director at the Coalition for Clean Air, a California nonprofit. “It’s safe to say California would sue in either instance.”</div><div>
</div><div>Michael Wara, an energy and environment expert at Stanford Law School, said the federal government could go further than car standards and try to revoke the rights of states to limit heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution billowed by power plants. It could also jeopardize “anything that smells like foreign policy” by states, Wara said, including linkages between a carbon pricing system operated jointly by California and Quebec.</div><div>
</div><div>“Anything that looks and feels like a treaty — that creates binding obligations on both sides — is going to face increased judicial scrutiny,” Wara said. “Here, if there is any conflict, the state loses.”</div><div>
</div><div>Not all talk of federal preemption is hypothetical. Rep. Michael Burgess, a Republican from Texas, introduced a bill last week that would repeal federal efficiency standards affecting washing machines, dryers, ceiling fans, fridges and other appliances. It would also prevent states from adopting any product standards governing “energy conservation or water efficiency.”</div><div>
</div><div>The Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank, supports Burgess’s anti-regulatory drive on appliances, but it’s worried that his bill would curtail state rights.</div><div>
</div><div>“We don’t believe the federal government should mandate energy conservation,” said Nicolas Loris, a Heritage Foundation energy and environmental policy fellow who has analyzed Burgess’s bill. “But we don’t think the federal government should prohibit the states from doing so.”</div><div>
</div><div></div><div></div><div>
</div><div>Gov. Jerry Brown warns Trump that California won't back down on climate change.</div><div>
</div><div>According to the analysis from Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) analysis, CA AB 32 and related climate policies have pumped some $48 billion into the state economy over the past decade while helping create about 500,000 jobs.Assembly Bill 32, also known as AB 32 or the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires California to reduce climate-cooking greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 — which meant cutting emissions about 25 percent from where they were at in 2006, when AB 32 was passed by the California State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. see CA.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>Oil Industry Wastewater Injection Has Overpressurized Aquifers For Decades, Threatening California Drinking Water</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>A new report from the Washington, D.C-based Environmental Action Center (EAC) on California’s underground injection program finds that oil industry wells in the state have been overpressurizing some aquifers for decades, risking the contamination of neighboring aquifers that might contain drinkable water. Despite full awareness of the problem, state regulators have done little to stop them.</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/10/28/oil-wastewater-underground-injection-threatens-drinking-water-california</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.alternet.org/environment/plastic-bag-lobby</div><div>
</div><div>When the tiny, picturesque community of Bisbee, Arizona, decided to ban single-use plastic bags in 2014, leaders in the plastics industry worried Bisbee had sparked a trend. Other Arizona cities—Kingman, Flagstaff, Tempe—were considering similar restrictions; soon, the bag makers feared, the whole state would fall. So they did what corporate lobbyists do in a reliably conservative state: They persuaded legislators and the governor to declare bans like Bisbee’s illegal.</div><div>
</div><div>Next door in deep blue California, where more than 150 local jurisdictions have already banned the bags, defending the market sector of the single-use plastic bag has proved altogether more complicated. Sixty percent of polled Californians say they support a plastic bag ban; rescinding the existing bans would be impossible. So instead the industry put its muscle into holding off a statewide ban.</div><div>
</div><div>For a while, it succeeded. Assemblymember Julia Brownley authored a bill in 2010 that would have outlawed single-use carryout bags of any material; it failed in the Senate after the Virginia-based American Chemistry Council worked hard to defeat it. But in 2014, State Senators Alex Padilla, Kevin de León and Ricardo Lara collaborated on a less restrictive law, one that would ban most plastic bags but allow grocery stores to charge 10 cents for each paper replacement. It earned the support of the California Grocers Association, and eventually the United Food and Commercial Workers union. It allows for the continued use of thicker plastic bags that will last for 125 uses or more and directs $2 million in loans to job creation in the recycled and reusable grocery bag industry. In August of that year, the bill made it all the way to the governor’s desk.</div><div>
</div><div>So the bag lobby pursued its last available option. Before 2014 was out, the plastics lobby had collected enough signatures to place the plastic-bag ban, Senate Bill 270, on hold and put it to a referendum on the November 8, 2016 ballot.</div><div>
</div><div>“Our contention is that it’s a special-interest giveaway to grocers in the state,” says Jon Berrier, spokesman for the American Progressive Bag Alliance, a consortium of mostly out-of-state plastic-bag manufacturers and an offshoot of the American Chemistry Council. “It bans a 100-percent recyclable product produced in America with American labor, that according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency accounts for only 0.3 percent of the waste stream.</div><div>
</div><div>“The idea that you’re going to reduce waste or litter banning plastic retail bags,” he says, “is simply false. Sacramento special-interest politics threw data and science out the window.”</div><div>
</div><div>Berrier is right that plastic bags account for only a small percentage of our garbage. (The vast majority of it is paper, yard trimmings and food.) But single-use plastic retail bags are a singularly pernicious kind of trash. Easily airborne, they float away from conscientious neatnik and litterbug alike, to find their way into mountain streams, storm drain culverts, ocean gyres and, eventually, the gullets of marine animals from cetaceans to sea birds. Sea turtles mistake them for jellyfish and suffer excruciating deaths by starvation; pelicans spear through them and strangle. On a recent paddle down the Los Angeles River, I saw white plastic bags clinging to the trees; my fellow kayakers playfully dubbed them “grocery-bag flowers.”</div><div>
</div><div>Plastic bags can be recycled at special, dedicated facilities, but you can’t just toss them into a blue bin. Sent to ordinary processing centers, they clog up sorting screens and have to be cut out with hook knives and saws. They don’t degrade, but disintegrate, turning ocean and freshwater into a diluted chemical soup.</div><div>
</div><div>But they are also big business, earning their manufacturers $100 million to $150 million every year in California alone. The short list of generous contributors to the No on 67 campaign contains only one in-state individual or company, Durabag of Tustin, California, which contributed a mere $50,000 early on. The rest of the donors list consists of out-of-state companies whose futures depend on the persistence of their industry: Advance Polybag of Sugar Land, Texas ($946,833); Formosa Plastics of Livingston, New Jersey ($1,148,441); Hilex Plastics of Hartsville, South Carolina ($2,783,739); Superbag of Houston, Texas ($1,238,188).</div><div>
</div><div>It has already been money well spent, and not just because a victory in the nation’s bellwether state could set a trend, while a loss could spread bag bans like a virus. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported, simply by delaying Padilla’s bill for 18 months, the industry has bagged $15 million in profit.</div><div>
</div><div>Steve Maviglio, a spokesperson for the Yes on 67 campaign that supports the ban, says that the plastics lobby’s concern over the predicted job losses rings hollow, considering that almost no single-use plastic bags are made in California. The thicker plastic bags allowed in Padilla’s law will, on the other hand, add to the state’s manufacturing economy, adding several hundred jobs. The plastic industry’s claim of 2,000 jobs lost “is incredible and nonsense,” Maviglio says.</div><div>
</div><div>The plastics lobby could, however, win this one—not least because the wording of the referendum on the ballot is confusing. “It’s not intuitive that we need to vote ‘Yes’ for the law to go into effect,” says Diz Swift, a member of the League of Women Voters in Berkeley. “People might say, ‘Oh, no, I don’t want the law vetoed, I want it to go into effect,’ and mistakenly vote ‘No.’” (To be clear, a “No” vote on Proposition 67 will overturn the bag ban; a “Yes” will uphold it.)</div><div>
</div><div>Even more confusing is that the plastic bag alliance has put another proposition on the ballot – Proposition 65 – that would direct the 10-cent bag fee toward a special wildlife conservation fund. Berrier says the measure came out of the bag alliance’s research. “Only 25 percent of the people we asked had any idea where that 10 cent bag fee would go,” he says. “A lot of people thought it was going to the environment, or to local government.” When they find out it’s going back to the grocers, he says, “They’re outraged. They want it to go to an environmental purpose.”</div><div>
</div><div>To Swift, however, putting Proposition 65 on the ballot above Proposition 67 is a blatant attempt to skew the vote. Only the most sophisticated and well-informed voters will understand what it all means. “The money goes into a fund that sounds really good,” she says. “It’s for drought mitigation, clean drinking water, regional parks, litter removal and habitat restoration. But it requires creating a bureaucracy that doesn’t really help.”</div><div>
</div><div>Maviglio is more blunt. “We call 65 the Screw the Grocers Initiative,” he says flatly. “They’re trying to send a message to grocers in other states who would hop aboard a statewide ban.” Single-use bags cost grocers anywhere from six to 16 cents per bag, “and that doesn’t include delivery and stocking,” Maviglio claims. “There’s no windfall there.”</div><div>
</div><div>If that’s not persuasive enough, he asks voters to consider the source. Prohibitions against plastic bags have been carried by the most grassroots of efforts—community organizations, moms, local environmental groups. The Arizona ban on plastic-bag bans, he says, comes straight out of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a think tank that assists corporations in state lawmaking, with an emphasis on preempting local control.</div><div>
</div><div>“The plastics industry has no regard for the environment,” Maviglio says. “It would be hypocritical of them to put something on the ballot to help wildlife.”</div><div>
</div><div>To be fair, Berrier doesn’t argue that helping wildlife is the point: The goal of Prop 65, he says, is only to highlight where the bag-fee money goes after grocers collect it.</div><div>
</div><div>“The language is very plain and simple,” he insists, “and it will have its intended effect.”</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>jarvis oppo</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>20 Billionaires who have contributed to or endorsed Proposition 39 as of November 6, 2000.</div><div>
</div><div>Name<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Occupation<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Worth<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Contributed</div><div>MOORE, GORDON EARLE<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>RETIRED EXECUTIVE (INTEL)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$26.0<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$199,609.00</div><div>WALTON, JOHN T.<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>CHAIRMAN (TRUE NORTH PARTNERS)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$17.0<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$2,000,000.00</div><div>SCHWAB, CHARLES R.<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>CHAIRMAN /CEO (CHARLES SCHWAB)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$10.0<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$100,000.00</div><div>SAMUELI, HENRY<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>CO-CHAIRMAN/CTO (BROADCOM)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$10.0<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$365,081.50</div><div>WAITT, THEODORE W.<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>CHAIRMAN (GATEWAY)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$8.4<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$100,000.00</div><div>SIEBEL, THOMAS M.<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>CHAIRMAN/CEO (SIEBEL SYSTEMS)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$6.4<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$500,000.00</div><div>MORGRIDGE, JOHN P.<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>CHAIRMAN (CISCO SYSTEMS)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$5.6<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$471,250.00</div><div>BROAD, ELI<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>CHAIRMAN/CEO (SUNAMERICA)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$5.2<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$254,051.64</div><div>BREN, DONALD L.<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>CHAIRMAN (IRVINE COMPANY)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$4.0<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>ENDORSED PROP. 39</div><div>MCNEALY, SCOTT G.<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>CEO (SUN MICROSYSTEMS)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$3.5<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$125,000.00</div><div>PERENCHIO, ANDREW<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>CHAIRMAN (UNIVISION)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$3.1<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$100,000.00</div><div>FISHER, DONALD<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>CHAIRMAN (THE GAP)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$2.7<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$500,000.00</div><div>FISHER, DORIS<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>MERCHANDISE CONSULTANT (THE GAP)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$2.7<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$500,000.00</div><div>LITTLE, JOHN E.<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>FOUNDER/CEO (PORTAL SOFTWARE)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1.9<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1,000.00</div><div>JACOBS, IRWIN MARK<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>CHAIRMAN (QUALCOMM)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1.5<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$50,000.00</div><div>HAWKINS, JEFFREY C.<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>CHAIRMAN/CPO (HANDSPRING)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1.3<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$381,000.00</div><div>COOK, SCOTT D.<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>BUSINESS EXECUTIVE (INTUIT)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1.2<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$997,993.96</div><div>CHAMBERS, JOHN<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>PRESIDENT/CEO (CISCO SYSTEMS)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1.0<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$520,000.00</div><div>DOERR, L. JOHN<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>VENTURE CAPITALIST (KLEINER PERKINS)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1.0<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$3,010,000.00</div><div>KHOSLA, VINOD<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>GENERAL PARTNER (KLEINER PERKINS)<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1.0<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1,000,000.00</div><div>20 TOTAL BILLIONAIRES<span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>$113.50<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$11,174,986.10</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://www.ecowatch.com/california-fracking-blm-1998974785.html</div><div>
</div><div>A California judge struck down a bid Tuesday by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to expropriate more than 1 million acres in central California for oil drilling.</div><div>
</div><div>Judge Michael Fitzgerald found that the BLM failed to consider the dangers of fracking, which is part of the formal application process. Two environmental groups, the Center for Biological Diversity and Los Padres ForestWatch, brought the lawsuit against the BLM.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>"The bureau failed to take a 'hard look' at the environmental impact of the resource management plan, when, under the RMP, 25 percent of new wells are expected to use hydraulic fracturing," Judge Fitzgerald said in his ruling.</div><div>
</div><div>"The bureau is therefore obligated to prepare a substantial EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] to analyze the environmental consequences flowing from the use of hydraulic fracturing."</div><div>
</div><div>The bureau's 1,073-page impact statement only mentioned fracking three times, SFGate reported. BLM had commissioned a report from the California Council on Science and Technology two years ago, the judge noted. However, commissioning the study does not absolve the BLM from further analyzing the impact of fracking on the area for its current permit, Fitzgerald added.</div><div>
</div><div>The area in question involves the following counties: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare and Ventura.</div><div>
</div><div>The agency has until Sept. 21 to present arguments as to why the judge should not issue an injunction to stop the plan.</div><div>
</div><div>The contested land area provides shelter to more than one-third of the federally listed threatened and endangered species, as well as groundwater systems that provide water for agricultural and residential purposes, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.</div><div>
</div><div>Environmentalists lauded the ruling.</div><div>
</div><div>"The Obama administration must get the message and end this reckless rush to auction off our public land to oil companies," Brendan Cummings, Center for Biological Diversity's conservation director, said. "As California struggles against drought and climate change, we've got to end fracking and leave this dirty oil in the ground."</div><div>
</div><div>ForestWatch executive director Jeff Kuyper also praised the ruling: "This ruling will protect public lands from the crest of the Sierra Nevada to the Central Coast from an influx of oil development and fracking. These treasured landscapes provide many benefits to our local communities and are too valuable to sacrifice for a few days' supply of oil."</div><div>
</div><div>But, the petroleum industry wasn't as happy with the ruling.</div><div>
</div><div>"Hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation treatments in California have undergone rigorous analysis and review, culminating in the most stringent environmental standards nationwide," Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, said. "Countless independent, state and federal science-based studies all agree. Hydraulic fracturing, when regulated, remains a safe technology that provides enormous benefits to American businesses and customers."</div><div>
</div><div>This latest ruling is not the first time a federal judge has blocked BLM from developing California land because of its failure to consider the environmental implications of fracking.</div><div>
</div><div>In 2013, a different judge ruled that the BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act by issuing oil leases on Monterey County land without doing necessary studies on the impact of fracking. BLM is still completing an environmental review on fracking, and has not been able to issue any leases in that area.</div><div>
</div><div>California has been a battleground state between companies eager to frack for oil and gas, and anti-fracking campaigns. So far, five California counties have banned the industrial practice, with Alameda County becoming the latest to do so....</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://www.alternet.org/environment/uncovering-californias-secret-massacre-whales-and-dolphins</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>CA funders:</div><div>
</div><div>2016</div><div>
</div><div>https://www.opensecrets.org/states/donors.php?cycle=2016&state=CA</div><div>
</div><div>Fahr LLC/Tom Steyer<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$38,458,844</div><div>Saban Capital Group<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$12,511,922</div><div>Laurel Foundation<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$7,141,046</div><div>Oracle Corp<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$5,324,217</div><div>Chartwell Partners<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$4,893,624</div><div>Chevron Corp<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$3,950,538</div><div>Herb & Marion Sandler/Sandler Foundation<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$3,445,200</div><div>Capital Group Companies<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$2,941,604</div><div>Dreamworks SKG<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$2,843,722</div><div>Charles Schwab Corp<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$2,781,183</div><div>Kleiner, Perkins et al<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$2,386,039</div><div>GH Palmer Assoc<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$2,265,181</div><div>University of California<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$2,075,379</div><div>Thiel Capital<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$2,016,200</div><div>Majority Cmte PAC<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1,968,687</div><div>Oberndorf Enterprises<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1,933,543</div><div>Cooperative of American Physicians<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1,892,515</div><div>Marcus & Millichap<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1,678,779</div><div>Alphabet Inc<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1,645,016</div><div>Stanford University<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>$1,630,43x</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://www.ecowatch.com/california-climate-policy-1988157045.html</div><div>
</div><div>"This was retail politics and oil lost," was how Adrienne Alvord of Union of Concerned Scientists summed up the stunning environmental victory Tuesday in the California legislature, a victory which cemented the state's commitment to a 40 percent reduction in climate pollution by 2030.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>It's not accidental that states providing climate leadership are the states with the biggest clean energy sectors, including California.</div><div>
</div><div>Only a few weeks ago there was a strong consensus that the oil industry, by spending millions of dollars on behalf of a cadre of moderate Democrats in the Assembly, had blocked just such a doubling down on the state's existing 2020 goals. For the oil industry, victory was an existential necessity. Only by holding future climate commitments hostage could the industry hope to get Gov. Brown to abandon the state's existing mandate that by 2020 the carbon content of fuels be cut by 10 percent. As a practical matter, the requirement means roughly 20 percent of California's more vehicles will be driving on something other than oil—electricity, natural gas or biofuels.</div><div>
</div><div>And oil knows it cannot withstand a competitive transportation fuels market. Once California creates such a market and builds businesses that can produce low carbon fuels at scale, fuels competition will go global and oil's empire will wither. But it looked like oil had survived to fight another day. Gov. Brown had signaled his next move by forming a ballot committee for a (high-risk) initiative for the fall of 2018. But a small group of climate and environmental justice advocates refused to let the Assembly moderates off the hook. Demanding a vote, they re-energized their broad coalition of main-line businesses, EJ advocates, labor, climate greens, the faith community, clean tech and clean fuels businesses, local government and public health advocates.</div><div>
</div><div>Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon told them he would give them a vote once they had the votes—and on Tuesday he pulled the trigger, giving the oil industry, which thought it had won, only 24 hours to regroup. It wasn't enough and the Assembly passed SB32 by 47 votes, a six vote margin over the 41 needed. The California Nurses Association was heard from, but so was Ebay. Gov. Brown and the White House weighed in, but a lone Republican, Assemblywoman Catherine Baker joined them in supporting progress. Wednesday the Senate concurred and the bill, linked to an environmental justice focused companion bill, went to the governor for his signature.</div><div>
</div><div>Why the victory? Quite simply, retail politics. Clean energy now provides far more stimulus and creates far more jobs than fossil fuels. Clean power is seen by the public as the linch-pin of the state's economic future. Jobs on the ground trump oil industry ads on the screen. It's not accidental that states providing climate leadership are the states with the biggest clean energy sectors—California, Washington, Nevada, Oregon—and Iowa, with its nation leading wind sector and a public utility, Mid-America, that is planning to shortly hit 85 percent renewables and go on to 100 percent.</div><div>
</div><div>And it's cheaper.</div><div>
</div><div>The oil industry is in a state of shock. Their press release bizarrely asserted that Rendon had scheduled the vote to "cover up" the fact that the state's latest auction for carbon emission permits had attracted few buyers—a result oil called "terrible." The auction simply reflected the fact that emitters, uncertain if the law would be extended past 2020, did not know how many permits they needed to buy. The oil industry conceded as much, saying "Today's miserable auction result reflects the market's lack of certainty." But it is revealing that oil called it "terrible" and "miserable" that the cost of carbon permits was low—demonstrating again that what they fear is not that decarbonizing will cost too much and hurt the economy, but that it will prove irresistibly cheap and strand them. Also revealing—SB32 was written precisely to provide the certainty whose absence the oil industry allegedly deplores!</div><div>
</div><div>(In fact, the legislature is going home next week and Rendon had to bring the bill up more or less when he did. The short notice was tactical—but hardly conspiratorial).</div><div>
</div><div>Ideological, right-wing opponents of climate progress and clean energy stayed more on message,releasing a poll purporting to show that the public, all the other evidence to the contrary, didn't really favor tougher clean-up of carbon pollution or California climate leadership after all.</div><div>
</div><div>Read carefully, however, the poll says something quite different. It confirms that most Californians want to move forward on clean energy and climate, believe that such progress is good for California even if others do not lead and want action. Even California Republicans are part of this consensus. Sixty-two percent of California Republican voters think that climate change is either a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the state. Again, of Republicans, 67 percent expect the changes resulting from global warming to occur in their lifetimes. A majority favor the state's current climate goals and a plurality favor the longer-term, more ambitious goals just passed.</div><div>
</div><div>It is true that, if nudged to believe that after such action, "hundreds of local manufacturing facilities would be shut down and thousands of middle-class jobs would be lost in California" large majorities of Republicans, and Democrats and Independents, lose their appetite. But if you said to the same sample that ambitious climate progress would mean "continued economic growth, an end to air pollution, cheaper gas and billions of dollars of new exports for California industries" the supportive numbers among Republicans would probably jump from a plurality to a super-majority. The latter statement is the true one, it turns out—and, more or less, it is what most California voters are experiencing—which explains why, un-manipulated, even Republicans are happy that the state continues to move forward.</div><div>
</div><div>But California is not the only arena where oil's long regime is coming to an end. Investors are watching warily as the majors—Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell have now accumulated an unprecedented $184 billion in debt, fallen far short ($40 billion short in the first half of 2016) of their promised goals of paying their dividends from profits, not borrowing. Shell, Chevron, Exxon and BP have all seen their previous platinum grade credit ratings cut a notch. To placate investors, the majors pledge that they have new (but far from transparent) business plans to someday make money again—if only oil will stay at some magic level. For BP it's $50-55/barrel. Unfortunately, it has not been in that range since 2014.</div><div>
</div><div>Many of the independent oil producers, of course, have gone bankrupt. Oil remains stubbornly below $50. Most independent analysts believe that for the oil majors, prices in the $75 range are required to compete with Persian Gulf and other OPEC members in the long term. And those prices, unequivocally, require one thing: a continuation of oil's monopoly in transportation fuel.</div><div>
</div><div>California this week called the question. That monopoly is going away. Oil has lost before, but never because the retail politics of its competitors proved more compelling. This was no decisive battle. There may be none, just as there is no moment when the fate of the Roman Empire was sealed.</div><div>
</div><div>But the sands of time are running. Oil's empire is in its decline and fall.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>A new analysis by a non-partisan business group finds that California’s climate policies have been a boon for the state’s economy.</div><div>
</div><div>Assembly Bill 32, also known as AB 32 or the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires California to reduce climate-cooking greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 — which meant cutting emissions about 25 percent from where they were at in 2006, when AB 32 was passed by the California State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.</div><div>
</div><div>According to the analysis from Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) analysis, AB 32 and related climate policies have pumped some $48 billion into the state economy over the past decade while helping create about 500,000 jobs. Read more.</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/08/18/california-s-climate-policies-good-gold-state-s-economy</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>California’s Drought Policy Serves Corporations First, People Second</div><div>California is suffering a historic drought with no relief in sight. According to the latest report from NASA, California has less than a year’s supply of surface water left. In an executive order, Governor Jerry Brown, a self-proclaimed climate leader, imposed a 25% reduction on the state’s local water supply agencies, which serve 90% of California’s residents. Everyday citizens are being asked to cut down on shower times and lawn watering. While these are worthy efforts, they are mere drops in the bucket considering that residential and municipal use of water in CA account for less than 20% of water consumption. Instead of getting at the root of the problem and targeting water-guzzling agribusiness and the oil and gas industry, Governor Brown’s climate policy is pro-corporate, irresponsible and unsustainable.</div><div>
</div><div>Despite the growing water crisis, there are no provisions in Brown’s water reduction plan to halt fracking, an extreme method of oil and gas extraction requiring high-pressure injection of millions of gallons of chemical-laced water and sand into deep rock setting free oil or natural gas unavailable through conventional drilling. Last year fracking production in the state used 70 million gallons of water,1 the equivalent of 514 households annually.2 Although proponents of fracking may claim that the combined water use of 514 households is not that high, water used in fracking is highly contaminated and not returned to the annual water cycle, unlike household wastewater.</div><div>
</div><div>It was recently learned that California officials allowed oil and gas companies to dump this contaminated water into federally protected aquifers that could have been used for drinking and irrigation purposes.3 Illustrating the corporate control of regulatory agencies, 46 percent of the state permits authorizing these practices were granted in the last four years, the same four years during which the EPA warned California regulators they were not doing enough to protect underground water reserves.</div><div>
</div><div>In the Central Valley, many Latina/o farmworkers are struggling for their livelihoods due to years of drought. As a result of last year’s extreme weather, 17,000 farmworker jobs and 400,000 acres of farmland were lost.4 Other Californians are living entirely without running water. In East Porterville, for example, people are turning to costly and environmentally destructive bottled water to meet household needs.5</div><div>
</div><div>We can also look at Nestle Corporation’s privatization of our water to further understand how corporate rule is impacting every Californian. In Sacramento, tens of millions of gallons of Sacramento municipal water are being withdrawn by a local Nestle plant. Nestle uses and bottles thousands of acre-feet of California water. An acre-foot, roughly speaking, equals 326,000 gallons, enough to supply a family’s yearly needs.</div><div>
</div><div>Nestle and other bottling companies buy water at a pittance and sell it back to the public at exorbitantly high rates. As California’s water disappears, the investment portfolios of some of the nation’s most profitable corporations are being flooded.</div><div>
</div><div>In a recent interview Nestle CEO Tim Brown was asked if halting waster extraction was in the company’s plans. Brown responded: “Absolutely not. In fact, if I could increase it, I would. …If I stop bottling water tomorrow, people would buy another brand of bottled water. ...It’s driven by consumer demand,&nbsp; it’s driven by an on-the-go society that needs to hydrate.” 6</div><div>
</div><div>Is it possible that CEO Brown never heard of a reusable drinking water bottle?</div><div>
</div><div>Out of this Nestle Corporation debacle, the “Crunch Nestle Alliance” formed. The group has singled out Sacramento City Hall, saying Nestle’s privatization was made possible through a “corporate welfare giveaway.” Nestle pays Sacramento $186.00 per 215,000 gallons of water taken from the area aquifers.&nbsp; Those 215,000 gallons bring the Nestle Corporation a whopping $2.1 million in profit.7 The Crunch Nestle Alliance has successfully blockaded a Sacramento Nestle plant several times, raising awareness that water is a human right not a commodity to sell on the open markets.</div><div>
</div><div>Notes</div><div>1 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/03/us-california-drought-fracking-exclusive-idUSKBN0MU01M20150403</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/fracking-california-water_n_6997324.html</div><div>
</div><div>2 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/06/3643184/california-70-million-gallons-fracking/</div><div>
</div><div>3 http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/02/05/ap-oil-drilling-waste-dumped-into-calif-aquifers-used-for-irrigation-drinking-water/</div><div>
</div><div>4 http://fusion.net/story/114463/as-california-goes-dry-latinos-suffer-disproportionately/</div><div>
</div><div>5 http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/20/east-porterville-california-drought-bottled-water-showers-toilets</div><div>
</div><div>6 "Starbucks Moves Ethos Water from California after Drought-shaming" The Washington Post, May 12, 2015</div><div>
</div><div>7 https://criticl.me/post/crunchnestle-alliance-1179</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>https://www.thenation.com/article/california-could-sound-the-loudest-call-yet-for-overturning-citizens-united/</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;California Could Sound the Loudest Call Yet for Overturning ‘Citizens United’</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The California Supreme Court clears the way for voters to demand a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics.</div><div>By John Nichols</div><div>January 5, 2016</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>sf styrofoam, 6 gun laws incl bullet button</div><div>
</div><div>spier pro contril</div><div>
</div><div>http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/07/04/sit-in-gun-control-jackie-speier-redwood-city/</div><div>
</div><div>---</div><div>
</div><div>breitbart BS</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>the wake of “gunpocalypse,” Second Amendment supporters in California are vowing civil disobedience: “Come and take it.”</div><div>Governor Jerry Brown signed six of the 11 new gun control bills that passed the California legislature last week, including a ban on “the sale of semiautomatic rifles equipped with bullet buttons.”</div><div>
</div><div>Bullet buttons are simple mechanisms that allow a gun owner to switch out an empty magazine for a full one.</div><div>
</div><div>In addition to the ban on the sale of such rifles, Brown also signed bills that will require law-abiding citizens to go through a background check before being allowed to buy ammunition.</div><div>
</div><div>After signing the bills, Brown released a statement, saying, “My goal in signing these bills is to enhance public safety by tightening our existing laws in a responsible and focused manner, while protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.”</div><div>
</div><div>Senate President Kevin de Léon (D-Los Angeles) praised the new laws, according to the Orange County Register:</div><div>
</div><div>“Taken together, these bills will save lives and make our communities, our families and our children safer,” de Leon said in an email. “Where Republicans in Congress have turned a deaf ear, we have answered the cries of the mothers, fathers, family members and friends who have lost loved ones to gun violence.”</div><div>
</div><div>But many law-abiding gun owners do not see how the Second Amendment is protected by more gun control. In fact, gun owners rallied near Sacramento’s Cesar Chavez Plaza on Saturday morning to to say the new controls simply turn “law-abiding citizens into criminals.”</div><div>
</div><div>For that reason, they have no plans to obey.</div><div>
</div><div>According to the Sacramento Bee, the protesters held banners which proclaimed, “WE WILL NOT COMPLY.”</div><div>
</div><div>Corey Gwathney helped organize the rally. He said, “They’re infringing on our rights, and we’re not going to stand for that.”</div><div>
</div><div>AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio.</div><div>
</div><div>--</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.govtslaves.info/gun-rights-activists-say-they-wont-comply-with-californias-new-laws/</div><div>
</div><div>---</div><div>
</div><div>his 401k plan</div><div>
</div><div>...</div><div>
</div><div>Cory Gwathney, a co-organizer of the protest who lives in Chico, said the rally had been in the works for over two months. The initial goal was to prevent Brown from signing the bills, Gwathney said, but because the laws were signed prior to the protest, the activists changed their message to one of noncompliance.</div><div>
</div><div>“He passed them yesterday before we could get out here, which sort of threw a wrench in the plans,” said Gwathney. “Now we’re just trying to send the message that we’re probably not going to comply. They’re infringing on our rights, and we’re not going to stand for that.”</div><div>
</div><div>Gwathney said it’s unlikely people will actually register their bullet-button rifles or turn in their large-capacity magazines as the laws require. People have invested thousands of dollars in bullet-button rifles, ammunition and magazines, Gwathney said, joking that his guns are his 401(k) plan.</div><div>
</div><div>Protester Steve Sarvar traveled from San Jose to participate in the rally. Sarver is a member of American Patriot the III% California, a group that takes its name from the claim that only 3 percent of colonists during the American Revolution fought on the battlefield against Great Britain.[see militia 2nd amend right to kia B)]</div><div>
</div><div>Due to last Sunday’s neo-Nazi protest at the Capitol, at which 10 people were injured, including five who were stabbed, law enforcement kept a close watch on Saturday’s event, Sarvar said, but there was no violence.</div><div>
</div><div>“I went over to the officers and asked them, ‘Do we look like criminals to you?’ And they all said that no, we didn’t,” Sarvar said. “But then I told them that this legislation that’s just been signed into law is going to turn ordinary people into criminals.”</div><div>
</div><div>Jorge Riley, president of the Sacramento chapter of the conservative California Republic Assembly organization, also traveled from Chico for the protest. He said people need to work through the legal system to try to stop the new laws.</div><div>
</div><div>“There needs to be a complaint filed with an injunction because these are an unconstitutional set of laws that have been passed, and they shouldn’t be able to become laws until they are reviewed by a judge,” Riley said. “It’s unconstitutional, that’s why we have judicial review.”</div><div>
</div><div>Riley described the Legislature and Brown’s actions as “reckless and irresponsible,” adding that they are trying to “usurp the federal Constitution” by passing legislation that conflicts with federal law.</div><div>
</div><div>The new laws will also be ineffective in preventing mass shootings like the recent Orlando massacre and last December’s San Bernardino attack, protesters argued. Assault weapons played a role in both shootings.</div><div>
</div><div>“When you pass laws that restrict guns, you stimulate a black market,” said Riley. “So the only thing is that people will still have guns, but they’ll have them illegally.”</div><div>
</div><div>Scott said the activists will continue protesting at the Capitol and in other parts of California, though many gun rights advocates may have resigned themselves after hearing about the laws Brown signed.</div><div>
</div><div>“I think a lot of people who planned on coming out today didn’t come out after all, because they think it’s a lost cause,” Gwathney said.</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article87414902.html</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article87414902.html#storylink=cpy...</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>“Real Time” host Bill Maher, during his “New Rules” segment Friday, peacocked California’s thriving economy after the state raised taxes on its wealthiest citizens.</div><div>
</div><div>“If Republicans are going to keep calling states ‘laboratories of democracy,’ they have to start looking at the results from the lab,” Maher said, noting that after California raised taxes on the wealthy, the state now sits sixth on the list of world’s largest economies. “Whereas states like Kansas and Louisiana that went back to the old trickle-down theory of ‘cut taxes on the rich and they’ll always do the right thing,’ are financial catastrophes.”</div><div>
</div><div>Maher explained that, after former-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger left office, California elected Democrats up and down the ballot, “so we can really study what happens when liberal policies are tried unimpeded. And the only thing I have to say to Republicans about that is: scoreboard, bitches.”</div><div>
</div><div>Watch the full segment below:https://youtu.be/BtNbMD96xgY</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>6/16 ban cigs 7/11 3x ads</div><div>
</div><div>California convenience stores would have one less sales category under a measure moving through the legislature.</div><div>
</div><div>On June 2, the state Senate passed a bill that would restrict tobacco sales to cigar shops. This piece of legislation, known as SB 1400, was introduced by state Sen. Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont).</div><div>
</div><div>The bill now moves to the state Assembly.</div><div>
</div><div>Under current California law, retailers selling tobacco products must obtain a license from the state Board of Equalization. Retail locations currently include convenience stores, grocery stores, gas stations, drug stores, airports, hookah lounges and tobacco shops.&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>- See more at: http://www.csnews.com/product-categories/tobacco/california-bill-would-remove-tobacco-c-stores#sthash.i4FX4gZU.dpuf</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/18/1527955/-The-fossil-fuel-industry-lied-to-us-about-climate-change-In-California-we-re-fighting-back</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>mojo</div><div>
</div><div>...</div><div>
</div><div>Irrigation water appears to be a major loophole in a food safety program that otherwise strictly controls what farmers can apply to their land. Notably, the organics program does prohibit the use of sewage sludge-based fertilizer, a product widely used on nonorganic farms that sometimes contains chemicals such as flame retardants and pharmaceuticals.</div><div>
</div><div>On Monday, California Assemblyman Mike Gatto, a Democrat from Glendale, introduced a bill that would require crops irrigated with wastewater from oil and gas operations to be labeled as such. "No one expects their lettuce to contain heavy chemicals from fracking wastewater," he explained in a press release.</div><div>
</div><div>That's especially true if their lettuce is labeled "organic," adds Adam Scow, the California director of the environmental group Food and Water Watch: "I think most people's logic would tell them that's not a practice consistent with organic standards."</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/10/farmers-irrigate-crops-oil-water/</div><div>
</div><div>When most people think of California, the first images that probably come to mind are the state’s sun-soaked beaches, the Hollywood hills and the fog-drenched Golden Gate Bridge. But a new documentary web series, Spotlight California, wants to show viewers the California you don’t see on postcards.</div><div>
</div><div>The five-part series, hosted by actress and comedian Kiran Deol, is investigating the impact of drought, water and air pollution, and gas price gouging in California.</div><div>
</div><div>The goal is to “raise awareness of these issues, give voice to the Californians being directly impacted and create an opportunity for people to join together and to take positive actions in communities across the state,” explained NextGen Climate, which is funding the project.</div><div>
</div><div>“With this project, I want to shed some light on the powerful players who have tilted the economic tables in their favor, profiting at the expense of our families,” Tom Steyer, president of NextGen Climate, said. “But I also want to highlight stories from people working hard to balance the scales; folks who maintain a positive attitude during tough times, while making a big difference.”</div><div>
</div><div>The first episode, which aired Jan. 26, took viewers into the heart of the drought, where half the residents of the low-income community of East Porterville in the Central Valley struggle to find fresh water.</div><div>
</div><div>Watch here:</div><div>
</div><div>The second episode, which aired last week, highlighted another aspect of the drought. It shows how farmers are using treated oil wastewater to irrigate their crops, despite the fact that nobody has tested the wastewater to see if it’s safe.</div><div>
</div><div>“There are farmers so desperate for water in one particular irrigation district called Cawelo, they’re taking some wastewater to irrigate crops from Chevron. It’s being used to grow food for people—citrus crops, grapes, pistachios,” Tom Frantz told Deol in the episode.</div><div>
</div><div>“You grow an orange—it’s 90 percent water when it gets to the consumer,” Frantz continued. “Where did that water come from? It’s the irrigation water. The irrigation water is toxic, even at very tiny amounts. Is there a tiny amount of toxicity now in the fruit? Nobody is testing that yet. And they’re salting up their soil by using this water, which means ultimately they’ll have to stop growing everything.”</div><div>
</div><div>Seth Shonkoff of PSE Healthy Energy explained to Deol that “until we have a list of the chemicals that are going into oil and gas wells and in what volumes and what are their toxicities, we’re flying blind.”</div><div>
</div><div>In order to find out the health impacts of using recycled oil water on crops, Deol joined water scientist Scott Smith as he covertly tested the water for toxic chemicals at the Cawelo wastewater treatment plant.</div><div>
</div><div>“We found oil and these nasty solvents,” which can cause “kidney damage, liver damage and cancer,” Smith said.</div><div>
</div><div>Watch the second episode here:</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/California_and_fracking</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The oil and gas industry is touting the potential of fracking in California to tap the largest tight oil formation in the continental United States, which they say contains up to 64 percent of the nation's deep-rock oil deposits.[1] Fracking in California is primarily used to extract oil. In some cases fracking is taking place on private land without the owner's knowledge.[2]</div><div>
</div><div>The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), whose members account for 80 percent of the oil and natural gas drilled in California, said WSPA companies fracked 628 oil wells in 2011 -- about a quarter of all oil and gas wells drilled across the state that year.[3] In 2013 California's Department of Conservation director Mark Nechodom estimated the state "might see around 650 hydraulic fracturing jobs a year."[4]</div><div>
</div><div>More common than fracking in California is acid jobs, an old well completion method that involves pumping chemicals such as hydrofluoric acid into wells to melt rocks and other impediments to oil flow. Companies are not required to report when they do it.[5] A report released in January 2015 stated that nearly half of all new oil wells in the state of California employed the use of fracking.[6]</div><div>
</div><div>Contents</div><div>1 Background</div><div>2 History</div><div>3 Oil and gas estimates</div><div>3.1 Production</div><div>4 Drilling wells</div><div>4.1 Use of diesel fuels</div><div>4.2 Natural gas</div><div>4.3 Los Angeles County</div><div>4.3.1 Inglewood</div><div>4.3.2 Long Beach</div><div>4.4 Kern County</div><div>4.5 Monterey County</div><div>4.6 Santa Barbara County</div><div>4.7 Offshore</div><div>4.7.1 Oil spill in Santa Barbara</div><div>4.8 Ventura County</div><div>4.9 Public lands</div><div>5 Fracked oil by rail</div><div>6 Water use and wastewater</div><div>6.1 Risk assessments</div><div>6.2 Leaks, spills, and accidents</div><div>6.3 California aquifers contaminated</div><div>6.4 Benzene</div><div>6.5 Toluene</div><div>6.6 Illicit dumping</div><div>6.7 Farming impacts</div><div>7 Injection wells</div><div>7.1 Earthquakes</div><div>7.2 Exemptions</div><div>8 Porter Ranch storage container leak</div><div>9 Other oil recovery methods</div><div>9.1 Acidizing</div><div>9.2 Cyclic Steam Stimulation</div><div>10 Citizen activism</div><div>10.1 State lawsuit</div><div>10.2 Federal lawsuit</div><div>10.3 Santa Barbara County</div><div>10.4 San Benito</div><div>10.5 Mendocino County</div><div>10.6 Monterey County</div><div>10.7 Los Angeles County</div><div>10.7.1 Lawsuit Against the City of Los Angeles</div><div>10.7.2 Demonstrators disrupt DOGGR workshop</div><div>10.7.3 Group attempts to stop Long Beach fracking permits</div><div>10.8 Long Beach</div><div>10.9 Culver City</div><div>10.10 Orange County</div><div>10.11 Carson</div><div>10.12 State level</div><div>11 Fracking studies</div><div>12 Legislation</div><div>12.1 Regulations</div><div>12.2 Disclosure</div><div>12.3 State and City Moratoriums</div><div>12.3.1 L.A. City Council</div><div>12.3.2 Beverly Hills Moratorium</div><div>12.3.3 Compton Moratorium</div><div>12.3.4 Santa Barbara County Moratorium</div><div>12.4 Notification of drilling</div><div>12.5 Water use and the California drought</div><div>13 Regulations</div><div>13.1 Governor Brown considers fracking standards</div><div>13.2 Regulations proposed</div><div>13.3 Well classification type</div><div>13.4 Public disclosure</div><div>13.5 Study on hazards</div><div>14 Lobbying</div><div>15 Citizen groups</div><div>16 Industry groups</div><div>17 Companies</div><div>18 Reports</div><div>18.1 EWG</div><div>18.2 EWG Wastewater</div><div>18.3 DOGGR Well Injection</div><div>19 Resources</div><div>19.1 References</div><div>19.2 Related SourceWatch articles</div><div>19.3 External links</div><div>19.4 External Articles</div><div>Background</div><div>In a 2008 paper prepared for a meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Pinnacle Technologies reported the fracking process "has been applied to a large scale in many Central and Southern California fields to enable economic development and reasonable hydrocarbon recovery. Example formations include the Belridge Diatomite, Stevens Sands, Etchegoin, Antelope shale, McLure shale, McDonald shale, Point of Rocks sands, Kreyenhagen shale, Ranger sands, the UP Ford Shale, and the Monterey shale.” It also stated that "[b]ased on the initial experience and formation properties, it is believed that hydraulic fracturing has a significant potential in many Northern California gas reservoirs.”[7]</div><div>
</div><div>Before 2014, the Division of Oil and Gas of the California Department of Conservation did not monitor, track or regulate hydraulic fracturing,[8] stating in a Feb. 16, 2012 update to its website that “fracking is used for a brief period to stimulate production of oil and gas wells” in California, but “the Division doesn’t believe the practice is nearly as widespread as it is in the eastern U.S. for shale gas production,” negating the need for monitoring. What the Division does not say, according to the Environmental Working Group, is that most fracking in California is used for oil, not gas, production.[9]</div><div>
</div><div>The passing of State Senator Fran Pavely's SB 4 put in place some process to track hydraulic fracturing and another enhanced well completion form called acidizing.</div><div>
</div><div>Center for Biological Diversity researchers note that ten California counties: Colusa, Glenn, Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Sutter, Kings and Ventura.[10] The exact number of fracked wells in the state is unknown, but the Environmental Working Group states that it "is clear that the total likely reaches into the thousands. Industry documents show that by the mid-1990s, more than 600 wells had been fracked in one Kern County oil field alone. Representatives of Halliburton told EWG in the fall of 2011 that 50-to-60 percent of new wells being drilled in Kern County were hydraulically fractured."[9]</div><div>
</div><div>In June 2013 the Los Angeles Times reported that a USC/LA Times poll showed that more than 70% of California voters favored banning or heavily regulating chemical injections into the ground to tap oil and natural gas.[11] It was reported in September 2013 that Californians (51 percent) continue to oppose than favor (32 percent) increased use of fracking, according to a statewide survey released Wednesday evening by the non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California.[12]</div><div>
</div><div>History</div><div>Hydraulic fracturing - creating fractures from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations - has been used on thousands of wells in California for over fifty years, according to a review of scientific articles by the Environmental Working Group.[9][1] The current fracking technique of high-pressure water, chemicals, and sand is often seen as originating in the late 1990s, in the Barnett Shale in Texas.[13]</div><div>
</div><div>In November 2011, the Los Angeles Times reported that Gov. Brown fired Derek Chernow, then head of the Department of Conservation, as well as Chernow's deputy, Elena Miller, after they generated a memo highly critical of "unconventional" oil extraction methods, primarily steam injection but also encompassing fracking. The process was put under a microscope in 2011 after an oil company worker died in Kern county from falling into a boiling cesspool of fracking discharge. Brown pushed Chernow to relax the regulations in 2011, but instead Chernow generated the memo concluding that relaxing regulations would violate federal laws. Shortly thereafter, Brown fired Chernow and his deputy, and installed Mark Nechodom, who sided with Brown and reduced the heightened scrutiny that had been placed on underground injection. In January 2012, The Times reported that Occidental Petroleum made a $250,00 contribution to Brown. Shortly after, the state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources said it did not plan to monitor or manage use of the technology unless the legislature requires it or the agency is handed “evidence of manifest damage and harm.”[14]</div><div>
</div><div>In 2012, regulators told the Los Angeles Times that they monitor drilling operations "quite thoroughly" under existing law, but also said there is a "need for more disclosure of what chemicals are used in oil production." According to the Times: "State Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), chairwoman of the Committee on Natural Resources and Water, wrote to state regulators [in 2011] asking basic questions: 'Where does fracking take place; How often is it used; And what are the potential risks?' Regulators had few answers, saying they had 'limited data' because the state has no reporting requirements."[1]</div><div>
</div><div>Many state regulators assert that fracking in California is "radically different" from drilling in other parts of the U.S., saying the process has long been performed in the state for shorter duration with much less water to loosen crude in depleted oil wells.[1]</div><div>
</div><div>At a March 28, 2012 hearing, lawmakers criticized the Gov. Brown administration's lack of actions on fracking, and state environmental officials requested that energy companies disclose where they conduct fracking operations and what chemicals they inject into the ground to tap oil deposits. At the time, only 78 of the tens of thousands of California oil field injection wells where fracking may be taking place were listed on a national fracking registry. Regulators also are considering whether to launch an independent study to assess effects of the practice, and are planning to undertake a statewide "listening" tour for public comment. [15]</div><div>
</div><div>Oil and gas estimates</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Montery Shale Formation in California.</div><div>California is estimated to have more tight oil (shale oil) than shale gas. Most estimates focus on the Monterey Shale, a rib-shaped formation that extends from northern California down to the Los Angeles area, offshore, and onto the outlying islands, spanning 1,750 square miles. Counties include Kern County, Orange County, Ventura County, Monterey County and Santa Barbara County, California. It is composed of many substances[16] and is not flat like other shales due to frequent earthquakes.[17] Some companies have called the Monterey Shale "arguably the largest shale play in the US."[18]</div><div>
</div><div>Estimates vary about how much oil lies in the state's shale rock formations. The estimate of "technically recoverable oil" is determined by multiplying the total amount of "oil-in-place" by the “recovery factor,” or the percentage of oil that can be recovered with today’s technology.[19]</div><div>
</div><div>Venoco, one of the companies with a significant presence in Monterey, once said there might be 300 billion barrels of oil in the Monterey Shale, but their first well was labeled "uneconomical," and their estimate has been seen as far too high.[20]</div><div>
</div><div>In 2011, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said there could be up to 15 billion barrels of crude in the Monterey Shale,[20] an estimate repeated by the Department of Energy[21] and NY Times.[22]</div><div>
</div><div>In May 2014 the EIA said 600 million barrels of oil can be extracted from the Monterey Shale with existing technology, cutting by 97% its earlier estimate of 13.7 billion barrels.[23]</div><div>
</div><div>In October 2015 the U.S. Geological Survey trimmed the Monterey Shale estimates further. The organization now estimates that the San Joaquin Basin portion of the Monterey Shale to 21 million. [24]</div><div>
</div><div>Production</div><div>The Energy Information Administration estimated that Monterey would produce 550 million barrels total per well, but “operators today are reporting typical flowrates averaging only around 350 to 400? barrels per day, according to a November 2012 article in World Oil (fee required). According to Dave Roberts at Grist: "At 400 barrels a day, it would take a well 3,767 years to hit 550 million barrels."[19]</div><div>
</div><div>Geologist J. David Hughes of the Post Carbon Institute argued that "initial productivity per well from existing Monterey wells is on average half to a quarter" of EIA assumptions, and cumulative recovery of oil per well "is likely to average a third or less of that assumed by the EIA." This estimate comes from his 2013 analysis of existing data: "1,363 wells have been drilled in shale reservoirs of the Monterey Formation. Oil production from these wells peaked in 2002, and as of February 2013 only 557 wells were still in production. Most of these wells appear to be recovering migrated oil, not 'tight oil' from or near source rock as is the case in the Bakken and Eagle Ford plays." He concludes that the EIA's 15 million barrel estimate is likely highly inflated.[25]</div><div>
</div><div>Drilling wells</div><div>The database maintained by the oil and gas industry’s website Frac Focus, where companies can voluntarily disclose information about their fracking practices, lists 78 wells in California as of Feb. 21, 2012. According to the Environmental Working Group: "Of these, one is in Los Angeles, one in Ventura County and two are off the coast of Long Beach. One is shown near Santa Barbara on a map, but the attached documentation places the well in Kern County. The other 73 wells are also in Kern County. All of these wells were fracked sometime in 2011 or 2012. Listings on Frac Focus are entirely voluntary and are known to be incomplete, so this accounting is not likely to be comprehensive."[9]</div><div>
</div><div>Use of diesel fuels</div><div>In 2011, a Congressional investigation determined that 26,444 gallons of diesel fuel had been injected into California wells in hydraulic fracturing fluids from 2005-2009.[9]</div><div>
</div><div>Natural gas</div><div>In 2011 notices to drill new natural gas wells in Northern California were received at a rate not seen in over twenty years. As of August 2011, the California Department of Conservation issued 178 permits to drill new wells in Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Glenn, Solano, Sutter, Yolo, San Joaquin, Sacramento and Tehama counties. At that rate, 267 notices would be filed by the end of 2012, compared to 137 in 2000 and 78 in 1995.[26]</div><div>
</div><div>Los Angeles County</div><div>In October 2015, DOGGR released to the public an audit of its regulation program. The audit concluded that since 2007, most oil projects in the Los Angeles area had not been subject to a required annual review.[27]</div><div>
</div><div>Inglewood</div><div>In 2012 it was reported that PXP was using fracking in the Inglewood oil field, the nation's largest urban oil field, which has been operating in Los Angeles since the 1920s and extends up through parts of the central coast and San Joaquin Valley.</div><div>
</div><div>A 2006 release of noxious gases at the Inglewood Field galvanized community members and environmental groups to sue Los Angeles County, forcing it to augment protections the county had previously created in partnership with PXP. The parties reached a settlement in 2011 that further limited PXP's oil drilling activities, including reducing the number of wells the company could drill. As part of the settlement agreement, PXP agreed to conduct a study that examined the feasibility and impact of current and future fracking at the oil field. It would be the first study to look at the impact of fracking in California, including its impact on groundwater.</div><div>
</div><div>According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the community that surrounds the oil field did not know about the 2012 test fracking until March 9, after the fracking was complete. According to FracFocus, the two vertical wells were fracked in September 2011 and January 2012. PXP used up to 168,000 gallons of water laced with chemicals in one well to a depth of about one and half miles. The Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, is concerned the impact such practices may have on the above water supplies.[28]</div><div>
</div><div>Over one million people live within five miles of the site. The fracking site also sits atop a fault line capable of 7.4 magnitude earthquake.[29]</div><div>
</div><div>On October 10, 2012, the environmental consulting firm Cardno ENTRIX released a report commissioned by PXP, entitled “Hydraulic Fracturing Study: PXP Inglewood Oil Field,” which concluded that fracking could be done safely in the area and seismicity could be mitigated. Cardno Entrix had previously been hired by TransCanada to do the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Keystone XL Pipeline. PXP and Los Angeles County contracted with JPMartin Energy Strategy LLC to peer review the report. J.P. Martin is director of the Shale Resources and Society Institute, which was created after a gas industry-funded lecture series on shale gas at SUNY Buffalo. SSRI produced a study in May 2012 finding no averse effects with fracking; all four co-authors were later found to have ties to the oil and gas industry, prompting 83 SUNY Buffalo faculty and staff members to call for an independent investigation into the origins of the SRSI.[30]</div><div>
</div><div>Long Beach</div><div>Fracking takes place off the coast of Long Beach, California on man-made oil islands. It was reported in 2013 that 203 fracking operations had taken place offshore Long Beach at six different sites over the past 20 years.[31]</div><div>
</div><div>An April 2015 investigative piece in OC Weekly noted that since 2012 there have been at least 22 hydraulic fracking operations completed offshore in Long Beach as well as at least 150 acidizing operations and 90 gravel packing jobs.[32]</div><div>
</div><div>In late June 2015 Thums Long Beach Co applied for nine fracking permits for offshore operations in Long Beach. The permits, which is the first step to get the operations approved, were okayed by the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal.[33]</div><div>
</div><div>Kern County</div><div>Kern County produces the most oil of any county in the U.S. In 2015 Kern had around 42,000 active wells. The county is responsible for 75% of California's oil wells and 95% of the fracking[34]</div><div>
</div><div>As of May 2012 there are 95 drilling wells posted on FracFocus, with the vast majority of the fracking projects reported in Kern County. FracFocus pinpoints a cluster of 58 wells fracked in 2011 between Lost Hills and McKittrick by XTO Energy/ExxonMobil. Many of the frack jobs pumped several hundred thousand gallons of water into wells about 3,000 feet deep. Another cluster of 12 wells in the Wasco-Shafter area was fracked in 2011 by Occidental Petroleum.[35]</div><div>
</div><div>In May 2012, Kern County's biggest oil producers, consenting to a request by state regulators, agreed to share information about their fracking operations by the end of June 2012. Chevron, Berry Petroleum Co., Bakersfield's Aera Energy LLC and other members of the Western States Petroleum Association will disclose data on their work with fracking on fracfocus.org.[36]</div><div>
</div><div>NASA found the second brightest methane hot spot in the U.S. from space appears to be above Harris Ranch, California’s largest beef producer, and near the Bakersfield oil fields.[37]</div><div>
</div><div>In November 2015 the Kern County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to approve one single environmental to take in effect December 2015 that would fast track individual projects in as little as seven days. Three oil industry groups spent more than $10 million in crafting the proposal.[38]</div><div>
</div><div>Monterey County</div><div>As of 2012 Venoco holds about 256,000 gross acres in the Monterey Shale formation, which starts in Monterey County and stretches across central California. An additional 60,000 acres have already been drilled. The firm has drilled more than 20 wells across the formation since 2010, and invested $100 million -- or nearly 40 percent -- of its 2012 expenditure budget to exploring for oil. The company has drilled four exploratory wells in Monterey County and plans for nine more.[39]</div><div>
</div><div>A move to ban fracking in Monterey County is slated for the November 2016 election.[40]</div><div>
</div><div>Santa Barbara County</div><div>In 2011 County of Santa Barbara made it difficult to frack onshore by mandate that all hydraulic fracturing on unincorporated county land be reviewed and approved. The county did not subject cyclical steaming and acidizing to this process. This happened after Venoco spilled waste water in a field of riesling grapes in northern Santa Barbara County near Vandenberg Air Force Base. [41]</div><div>
</div><div>Based on information gathered from a 2010 oil prospectus from Venoco, investigated by the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), and confirmed by the federal government, there was fracking done in 2009 on the Gail oil platform in the Sockeye field in federally controlled waters near Santa Cruz Island in the Channel Islands.</div><div>
</div><div>In another financial disclosure document there are hints from Venoco's public filings that the company planned to enhance, through prop fracture (an older method of enhancing older wells) or possibly fracking, their other active offshore oilfield in California state waters, known as the South Ellwood -- a field approximately seven miles long and part of the northern flank of the Santa Barbara channel and extending to the Ventura basin.[42]</div><div>
</div><div>Offshore</div><div>For more information see Offshore fracking</div><div>
</div><div>Offshore Fracking in California.</div><div>In July 2013 the news site Truthout reported that federal regulators approved at least two hydraulic fracturing operations on oil rigs in the Santa Barbara Channel off the coast of California since 2009 without an updated environmental review to account for modern fracking technology. Regulators approved both operations by signing off on modifications to existing drilling permits. In an internal email, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Chief of Staff Thomas Lillie wondered how the agency could allow fracking offshore without producing an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the effects. No studies have been performed on the effects of fracking fluids on the marine environment.[43]</div><div>
</div><div>It was later reported that the BSEE gave “categorical exclusions” to oil companies for frack jobs on existing offshore oil rigs, allowing them to proceed with the activity in the federal waters off California without public disclosure or environmental impact analysis. According to federal guidelines, categorical exclusions are intended for projects that don’t warrant an environmental review because they don’t normally “result in significant environmental harm.”[44]</div><div>
</div><div>According to a BSEE fact sheet, fracking has occurred 11 times in the Pacific drilling region during the past 25 years, although BSEE officials say the number is only an estimate. Under heavy pressure from environmental groups and state politicians, the California Coastal Commission launched an investigation into offshore fracking, saying it was not aware that fracking technology was being used offshore. On August 6, nine California lawmakers sent letters to the Interior Department and the EPA demanding a federal investigation into offshore fracking, and asking the coastal commission to review federal offshore fracking permits and use its authority to block fracking activities that could harm the California coast.[43]</div><div>
</div><div>An October 2013 Environmental Defense Center review and analysis of federal records received through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showed that at least 15 fracs have occurred offshore California, with several more proposals pending. But according to EDC: "More fracs have almost certainly been conducted, however, as federal regulators were until recently unaware that the practice was being used." Saying the offshore frac jobs raise questions about compliance with environmental laws, EDC recommends a "moratorium on offshore fracking and other forms of well stimulation unless and until such technologies are proven safe through a public and transparent comprehensive scientific review" and to "prohibit the use of categorical exclusions (exemptions from environmental review) to authorize offshore fracking and other forms of well stimulation."[45]</div><div>
</div><div>According to interviews and drilling records obtained by the Associated Press in October 2013, energy companies employed offshore fracking at least 203 times at six locations over the past two decades. The drilling sites included waters off Long Beach, Seal Beach, and Huntington Beach, all popular tourist areas.[46]</div><div>
</div><div>A settlement to a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity against the U.S. Department of the Interior prompted an offshore fracking moratorium off the California coast. A press release by the Center for Biological Diversity stated that the "agreement requires the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement to analyze the environmental dangers of offshore fracking and acidization under the National Environmental Policy Act. The settlement also prohibits federal officials from authorizing these inherently dangerous practices in federal waters until that analysis is concluded."[47]</div><div>
</div><div>Oil spill in Santa Barbara</div><div>In response to a moderate sized oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in May 2015, environmental groups warned that such spills are likely to happen again as long as offshore oil drilling, including fracking, continues to take place off the coast of California.[48]</div><div>
</div><div>On May 19, 2015 a rupture in a pipeline owned by All American Pipeline caused over 142,800 gallons to spill on the beach and ocean. It is commonly known as the Refugio Oil Spill named after Refugio Beach located just north of Santa Barbara where the majority of the crude landed.</div><div>
</div><div>State wildlife workers would eventually collect and tall both dead and live birds and animals from the spill. The tally would include 202 dead birds, 65 live ones, 99 dead mammals, including 15 dolphins, ?and 63 live mammals. Sixty nine pelicans, sea lions, loons, and others would be treated and later freed.[49] Sea mammals were found washed up in the cities of Ventura and Oxnard south of the spill.</div><div>
</div><div>Federal regulators from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration determined in February 2016 that external corrosion was the cause of the spill.[50]</div><div>
</div><div>The Santa Barbara Independent reported that federal regulators determined that All American Pipeline employees waited 89 minutes to report the spill.[51]</div><div>
</div><div>More than onshore and offshore oil employees facilities lost their jobs because oil was no longer transported through the area.[52]</div><div>
</div><div>ExxonMobil’s Heritage, Harmony, and Hondo platforms were out of commission after the Refugio Oil Spill shut down the All American Pipeline.</div><div>
</div><div>Venoco was one of several local operating companies negatively effected by the pipeline spill. On February 16, 2016 Venoco missed submitting its $13.7 million semi-annual interest payment. Venoco, ExxonMobil, Freeport-McMoRan offshore oil platforms ceased operating shortly after the spill because the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration shut down pipelines moving crude oil to refineries. In November 2015, Venoco reported a net loss of $203.3 million for the third quarter.[53]</div><div>
</div><div>Ventura County</div><div>Oxnard, California is home to an active tar sands field located in a large field of farmland. The Oxnard oil field has both wells drilling to the Monterey Shale and cyclical steaming wells to attract bitumen, also known as tar sands. In 2011 tar sands drilling destroyed a field of broccoli. [54]</div><div>
</div><div>Public lands</div><div>In October 2013 Los Angeles County leaders voted unanimously to oppose a plan to drill for oil in publicly owned parkland in the Whittier hills, saying the proposal would undermine open space protection throughout the county. The drilling was proposed by Matrix Oil Co. in agreement with the city of Whittier, neither of which said they will recognize the county's vote. Litigation is underway. The dispute is over whether the city has the right to allow oil drilling on 1,280 acres it purchased in 1994 with about $17 million of Proposition A funds, which were intended for conservation purposes. Under terms of the proposed lease, Matrix would use slant-drilling technology to tap an estimated 20 million barrels of tight oil, in exchange for the city receiving royalties. Whittier officials believe that they are legally entitled to the oil because they say the city retained the mineral rights, even if the land was purchased with county bond money for conservation purposes.[55]</div><div>
</div><div>Fracked oil by rail</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>California Oil Imports Rising.</div><div>In October 2014 the Wall Street Journal reported that California rail depots that will begin to handle oil from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale. In order to handle the demand, Alon USA Energy Inc. is building the state’s largest oil-train terminal Kern Country. That terminal, which is to be completed in 2015, will receive 150,000 barrels of oil a day in Bakersfield, California. Additionally, Plains All American Pipeline is opening a 70,000-barrel-a-day oil-train terminal, also located in Bakersfield. The oil for this terminal will also come from fracked gas from North Dakota's Bakken Shale.[56]</div><div>
</div><div>The Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery in Arroye Grande, California plans to expand its rail line. The first Environmental Impact Review indicated the oil on the rail would be the North Dakota Bakken formation Shale. The October 2014 Environmental Impact Report indicated the rail would only haul Canadian tar sands from Alberta's boreal forests.</div><div>
</div><div>Trains coming and going from Santa Maria Refinery would travel the path of the Union Pacific Rail, on tracks shared by Amtrak. They would make the journey north through Ventura and Santa Barbara County to the Nipomo Mesa, through Paso Robles, Salinas, and San Jose. Then they head through Richmond, then Berkeley. The cities of Moorpark, Richmond, and Berkeley city councils passed resolutions calling for stricter regulations on crude oil trains. [57]</div><div>
</div><div>Water use and wastewater</div><div>The average fracked well in California used 166,714 gallons of water, according to a 2013 Ceres report.[58]</div><div>
</div><div>In 2011, onshore oil and gas drilling wells in California produced more than 2.5 trillion barrels of produced water; over 126 million was produced at the Inglewood oil field of Los Angeles County.[59]</div><div>
</div><div>A 2014 report by World Resources Institute found that ten gas deposits "sit atop aquifers that are being withdrawn at rates that far exceed their natural recharge rate," including California's Monterey formation, which covers the southwest coastal region around Los Angeles and inland near Bakersfield as well as in Texas and the Rocky Mountains.[60]</div><div>
</div><div>In 2014, fracking in California used 75 million gallons of water.[61]</div><div>
</div><div>Risk assessments</div><div>As of 2012, California has not assessed fracking’s risks to California’s groundwater, according to a 2012 Environmental Working Group (EWG) report. The report cites a 2011 letter in which Sen. Fran Pavley asked state regulators to “provide the results of any risk assessments that the State of California has conducted regarding potential groundwater contamination associated with hydraulic fracturing.” The agency responded: “The division does not know of any state risk assessment regarding potential groundwater contamination associated with hydraulic fracture.”[9]</div><div>
</div><div>According to Clean Water Action (CWA), fracking poses many risks for California's water supply since a single frack well can use upwards of hundreds of thousands to millions of gallons of water. Additionally, CWA second's EWG's report that fracking could pollute groundwater supplies in the state.[62]</div><div>
</div><div>A 2015 report by EWG, which analyzed data released by the state during the first year of new reporting requirements, found high levels of benzene in fracking wastewater. Additionally, the study revealed "the presence of hundreds of chemicals, including many linked to cancer, nervous system damage and reproductive disorders."[63]</div><div>
</div><div>Leaks, spills, and accidents</div><div>In 2009, a jury in Kern County found that 96 million barrels of wastewater from drilling had leached from holding ponds onto a farmer's property, resulting in contamination of the aquifer beneath his land.[64] According to the Environmental Working Group: "It’s unknown if any of this wastewater came from hydraulic fracturing; what is clear is that California’s ground and drinking water are not being adequately protected from the hazards of fracking and oil and gas operations in general."[9]</div><div>
</div><div>In 2010, contaminants from a wastewater injection well bubbled up in a west Los Angeles dog park.[65]</div><div>
</div><div>California aquifers contaminated</div><div>In July 2014 California state regulators shut down 11 fracking wastewater injection wells over concerns that the wastewater might have contaminated aquifers used for drinking water and farm irrigation. Following the shutdown, the EPA ordered a report within 60 days. In October 2014, the California State Water Resources Board has sent a letter to the EPA which confirmed that "at least nine of those sites were in fact dumping wastewater contaminated with fracking fluids and other pollutants into aquifers protected by state law and the federal Safe Drinking Water Act."[66]</div><div>
</div><div>Benzene</div><div>Data released in February 2015 from a report on California fracking found that there was 700 times the federal standard amount of Benzene in fracking waste fluids. The raw data showed that 98% of wastewater samples taken from 329 fracking sites in the state had dangerous levels of benzene, which is a known carcinogen. The data was gathered over a one year period by the Center for Biological Diversity.[67]</div><div>
</div><div>The EWG ran tests on 293 wastewater for the organization's 2015 wastewater report. Benzene was found in 99 percent of the samples. All detections exceeded the California drinking water standard. Eighty percent exceeded it by factors of 100 to 1,000. [68]</div><div>
</div><div>Toluene</div><div>Toluene, a neurotoxin classified as a potent reproductive toxin under Proposition 65. The EWG ran tests for toluene in 293 hydraulic fracking wastewater samples. EWG detected toluene in 83 percent of the samples at levels above the drinking water standard. [69]</div><div>
</div><div>Illicit dumping</div><div>In February 2015, Kern County water officials discovered hundreds of unlined fracking wastewater pits that were operating without permits. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board found that more than one-third of the region’s active disposal pits were operating without proper permits. The unlined pits raise concerns that groundwater could be contaminated in the area. The operators of these sites will not be shut down, but will have to apply for permits and monitor the sites if they are near water sources.[70]</div><div>
</div><div>Farming impacts</div><div>In August 2015 California State Assemblyman Mike Gatto, who represents the Los Angeles. area, introduced a bill that will be considered as part of the California Legislature’s Special Session on health. The bill, if it passes, would require labels to be placed on food that was grown using fracking wastewater.[71]</div><div>
</div><div>Injection wells</div><div>Over 25,000 oilfield injection wells are operating in the state. Injection wells are used to increase oil recovery and to dispose of the salt and fresh water produced with oil and natural gas. Class II wells involve injecting fluids associated with oil and natural gas production operations - generally the brine that is produced when oil and gas are extracted from the earth.[72]</div><div>
</div><div>On July 7, 2014 California's Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources "issued cease and desist orders to seven energy companies warning that they may be injecting their waste into aquifers that could be a source of drinking water, and stating that their waste disposal 'poses danger to life, health, property, and natural resources.'" In all 11 companies were ordered to stop injections, while 100 more were being reviewed in California's Central Valley, which has been impacted by a severe three-year drought. State officials were concerned that toxic waste from injection wells could enter groundwater supplies that farmers are using to irrigate crops in the region.[73]</div><div>
</div><div>In March 2015 California regulators ordered a halt to wastewater injection operations at 12 underground well sites in Kern County. The action was part of a systematic statewide review of injection related to the oil and gas industry.[74]</div><div>
</div><div>In 2015, the U.S. EPA conducted an investigation into the state's regulation of wastewater injection wells. The U.S. EPA charged the state for allowing drillers to inject oil waste into federally protected aquifers. More than 2,500 illegal injection wells were identified in California. [75]</div><div>
</div><div>In October 2015, the state shut down 33 wells that were injecting wastewater into California aquifers. As of October 2015 the state shut down a total of 56 wells in the state that were pumping wastewater into local aquifers.[76]</div><div>
</div><div>In 2016 Stanford University scientist, Rob Jackson, identified hundreds of hydraulic fracturing wells drilled into California aquifers located less than 2,000 feet below the surface.[77]</div><div>
</div><div>Earthquakes</div><div>According to USGS Earthquake Science Center’s Art McGarr, there are no high-volume waste-water injection wells in California located within areas of high population density, to his knowledge. There is also, however, no way to verify this due to the lack of state and federal disclosure laws.[78] Wastewater injection into disposal wells has been linked to a series of small earthquakes in Ohio[79] and the U.S. mid-continent.[80]</div><div>
</div><div>Geologists in a February 2016 article in Geophysics Research Letters tied a September 2005 swarm of earthquakes near the White Wolf fault in Kern County to three wastewater disposal wells nearby. Using hydrogeological modeling, the authors found that wastewater disposal likely contributed to seismicity via localized pressure increase along the active fault.[81]</div><div>
</div><div>Exemptions</div><div>A 2012 ProPublica investigation into the threat to water supplies from underground injection of waste found the EPA has granted energy and mining companies exemptions to release toxic material in more than 1,500 places in aquifers across the country. The EPA may issue exemptions if aquifers are too remote, too dirty, or too deep to supply affordable drinking water; however, EPA documents showed the agency has issued permits for portions of reservoirs that are in use, assuming contaminants will stay within the finite area exempted. More than 100 exemptions for natural aquifers have been granted in California, some to dispose of drilling and fracking waste in the state's driest parts. Though most date back to the 1980s, the most recent exemption was approved in 2009 in Kern County, an agricultural area.[82]</div><div>
</div><div>Porter Ranch storage container leak</div><div>http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/05/11/california-regulators-are-approving-fracking-permits-near-fault-lines</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;=</div><div>
</div><div>http://insideclimatenews.org/news/29032016/climate-change-deception-oil-companies-exxon-california-legislation</div><div>
</div><div>Fossil fuel companies in California could face investigation under legislation introduced by a state senator who says the proposed law is designed to hold industry accountable for "many years of public deception" and fraud over the scientific evidence about climate change.</div><div>
</div><div>The Climate Science Truth & Accountability Act would extend the statute of limitations under California's Unfair Competition Law from four to 30 years, giving greater leverage to state and local prosecutors to file civil charges in connection with the conduct of fossil fuel companies going back decades.</div><div>
</div><div>The legislation, introduced by Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), would give prosecutors authority to delve into the issues dating to the heart of the denial era.</div><div>
</div><div>The legislation was inspired by investigative news stories, including those by InsideClimate News (ICN), and an investigation by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that disclosed ExxonMobil and the oil industry were aware of the dangers of global warming from the burning of fossil fuels as far back as the 1970s.</div><div>
</div><div>The ICN stories and later articles by the Los Angeles Times in tandem with the Columbia University Journalism School—along with a UCS report last year—revealed that the company went on to spearhead industry efforts in the late 1980s to derail regulation of greenhouse gas emissions and cloud public understanding of climate science.</div><div>
</div><div>The bill takes aim at fossil fuel companies over concerns that they have deceived the public for decades about their products' impact on climate change, and seeks to hold them accountable.</div><div>
</div><div>Based on his review of the recent disclosures, Allen said there are serious issues that warrant investigation.</div><div>
</div><div>"I want to give law enforcement the tools they need to hold people accountable for their actions if that's where the evidence takes them," he said. "Certainly everything we've seen suggests there may be a really strong case."</div><div>
</div><div>'Unfair and Deceptive Practices'</div><div>
</div><div>Allen said the legislation is not a directive to law enforcement to pursue prosecutions, and he emphasizes the bill does not change the standard of proof or alter legal due process.</div><div>
</div><div>Yet a summary of the bill by Allen's office concluded: "Given the environmental, health, and economic impacts that Californians are already paying for as a result of the fossil fuel industry's many years of public deception and their efforts to block action on climate change, it is important to hold the industry responsible.</div><div>
</div><div>"Keeping the statute limited to only four years undermines the state's ability to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for their unfair and deceptive practices that extend back well beyond four years, as well as the damages and risks that Californians and everyone else must face for centuries to come."</div><div>
</div><div>Extending the deadline for filing environmental cases would expose fossil fuel companies like Exxon to greater liability, said Richard Frank, professor of Environmental Practice and Director of California Environmental Law and Policy Center at the University of California, Davis.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;"If the statute of limitations is extended, that means a now powerful environmental prosecutorial tool will become even more powerful," saidFrank, who served nearly 30 years as a deputy in the California attorney general's office.</div><div>
</div><div>The unfair competition statute allows the California attorney general, a district attorney, or a city attorney of a city with more than 750,000 people to bring legal action against a business that has committed "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act[s] or practice[s] and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising," as it relates to climate change.</div><div>
</div><div>As the law stands now, it is difficult for prosecutors to file cases involving violations older than four years. That would change if Allen's bill becomes law.</div><div>
</div><div>"It would open up a much wider window for companies to be held accountable for their conduct," Frank said.</div><div>
</div><div>It could be applied to possible violations by ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies for making deceptive public statements about what it knew about climate change and any attempts to obfuscate the truth, Frank said.</div><div>
</div><div>Cases brought under the law are civil, not criminal. That means violations can result in hefty fines and court orders to halt the illegal conduct.</div><div>
</div><div>The law could also be employed in civil litigation by private citizens who can prove to a court they have sufficient connection to, and harm from, the alleged violations. The proposed law also would also apply to so-called "private party" cases, in which stockholders might sue a company.</div><div>
</div><div>The bill must make its way through several senate committees before coming up for a vote in June before the full body. If it passes, the legislation will be forwarded to the assembly for consideration and a vote later in the summer. A final bill, if passed by the Democratic-held senate and assembly, could be on Gov. Jerry Brown's desk by August.</div><div>
</div><div>Brown, also a Democrat, and state lawmakers have a history of taking steps to combat climate change and curb toxic carbon pollution. Most recently, Brown signed ambitious legislation to expand renewable energy use to 50 percent and double energy efficiency in buildings by 2030.</div><div>
</div><div>Exxon already is the target of an investigation by the New York attorney general's office. Investigators for Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have issued a subpoena demanding Exxon turn over documents related to its climate change studies, and the way the company represented that information to the public. During a press conference Tuesday with five other attorneys general and former Vice President Al Gore, Schneiderman confirmed that California Attorney General Kamala Harris has also launched an Exxon climate probe. The attorneys general of Massachusetts and the Virgin Islands announced their own investigations of the oil giant.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Adrienne Alvord, California and western states director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the proposed expansion of California's statute of limitations is vital because the state is already experiencing the costly, damaging effects of climate change.</div><div>
</div><div>"We want to ensure that the state has the ability to hold fossil fuel companies legally accountable for the decades of deception and damages they have caused to public health, property and the environment in California," she said.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/gop-primary-alameda-county-california-donald-trump-ted-cruz-republicans-relevant</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>ca coal divest jones</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2016/statement010-16.cfm</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/29/rooftop-solar-wars/ CPUC supports</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/22/monsanto-sues-california-glyphosate</div><div>
</div><div>...</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Last September, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued plans to add glyphosate to the state’s list of chemicals known to cause cancer, making it the first state in the country to do so. The state agency’s decision came after the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC), the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm, infamously declared that glyphosate was a “possible carcinogen” in March 2015.</div><div>
</div><div>Monsanto has long maintained the safety of their flagship product and has vehemently denied glyphosate’s link to cancer. The agribusiness giant has also demanded a retraction of the IARC’s report.</div><div>
</div><div>Monsanto is now suing OEHHA and the agency’s acting director, Lauren Zeise, in California state court, citing a 2007 study by OEHHA that concluded the chemical was unlikely to cause cancer, Reuters reported.</div><div>
</div><div>“The IARC classification of glyphosate is inconsistent with the findings of regulatory bodies in the United States and around the world, and it is not a sound basis for any regulatory action,” Phil Miller, Monsanto’s vice president of regulatory affairs, told Reuters.</div><div>
</div><div>@MonsantoCo just sued @California for trying to protect people from #glyphosate https://t.co/yfcO8VXGlC pic.twitter.com/swEP8IfedX</div><div>
</div><div>— Nathan Donley (@Nathan_Donley) January 22, 2016</div><div>
</div><div>OEHHA’s effort to list glyphosate as a known carcinogen falls under California’s Proposition 65, in which the state is required to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. The same law, otherwise known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also requires that certain substances identified by the IARC be listed as known to cause cancer.</div><div>
</div><div>The case, known as Monsanto Company v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, et al, case number 16-CECG-00183, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno.</div><div>
</div><div>According to the lawsuit, the St. Louis-based company is accusing OEHHA of delegating law-making authority to “an unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, and foreign body without providing intelligible principles or procedural safeguards to define the boundaries of that authority or prevent its arbitrary exercise.”</div><div>
</div><div>Monsanto claims that OEHHA has violated the company’s right to procedural due process under the California and United States Constitutions.</div><div>
</div><div>The lawsuit claims that listing glyphosate under Proposition 65 would violate Monsanto’s right to free speech and compel it to affix “false and/or misleading” statements to its products: “If glyphosate is added to the Proposition 65 list, Monsanto will be required to provide a ‘clear and reasonable warning’ on its glyphosate-based products that states that the products contain a chemical ‘known to the state to cause cancer.'” Monsanto argues that this label would damage its reputation and violate its First Amendment rights.</div><div>
</div><div>Citing conclusions from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority, Monsanto maintains that glyphosate does not cause cancer.</div><div>
</div><div>Listing glyphosate as a carcinogen would cause irreparable injury to Monsanto and the public, and would require Monsanto to spend significant sums of money to re-label and re-shelf its products, the lawsuit said.</div><div>
</div><div>OEHHA has yet to issue a response to the lawsuit. Scientists and advocacy groups, however, have spoken out against the litigation.</div><div>
</div><div>Monsanto's grounds for suing California over its cancer warning for #glyphosate include that it violates Monsanto's First Amendment rights!</div><div>
</div><div>— GMWatch (@GMWatch) January 22, 2016</div><div>
</div><div>“Monsanto’s decision to sue California and attack the most well-respected cancer research agency in the world, the IARC, is absurd,” Dr. Nathan Donley, scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, told EcoWatch via email. “Why would California use anything other than the gold standard to inform its public health decisions?”</div><div>
</div><div>Roundup, which generated Monsanto $4.8 billion in 2015 revenue, is the world’s most popular herbicide. The chemical is applied onto “Roundup Ready” crops that are genetically modified to resist applications of the spray.</div><div>
</div><div>Monsanto, however, is facing a slew of criticism from environmentalists as well as mounting class-action lawsuits over the controversial chemical.</div><div>
</div><div>In September, two separate U.S. agricultural workers slapped Monsanto with lawsuits, alleging that the company caused their cancers. They also argued that the company “falsified data” and “led a prolonged campaign of misinformation” to convince the public, farm workers and government agencies about the safety of the Roundup.</div><div>
</div><div>#Monsanto Sued by Farm Workers Claiming #Roundup Caused Their Cancers http://t.co/NRhlrUScrR @GMOjournal #GMO pic.twitter.com/l0qMxc5qaW</div><div>
</div><div>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) September 30, 2015</div><div>
</div><div>YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE</div><div>
</div><div>Monsanto’s Genetically Engineered Roundup Ready Alfalfa Has Gone Wild</div><div>
</div><div>Demand for Non-GMO Products Hits the Seed Industry</div><div>
</div><div>59 Indigenous Corn Varieties at Risk as Monsanto Eyes Mexico</div><div>
</div><div>FDA Approves Genetically Engineered Potato</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.alternet.org/environment/california-drilling-plan-verges-insanity-environmentalists-say</div><div>
</div><div>AKERSFIELD, Calif. (CN) - Environmental groups sued Kern County for a zoning revision they say will allow the oil industry to drill 73,000 new oil wells in unincorporated areas - 10 a day for 20 years.</div><div>
</div><div>Among the severe and illegal shortcomings of the new county ordinance is that it treats the drilling of 72,490 oil and gas wells on 2.3 million acres for 20 years as a single project, the local and national environmental groups say.</div><div>
</div><div>The Committee for a Better Arvin, Committee for a Better Shafter, and Bakersfield-based Greenfield Walking Group sued the county, its Board of Supervisors and its planning and development department on Thursday in Superior Court. The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity joined as plaintiffs. It is the Top Download at Courthouse News on Monday.</div><div>
</div><div>The Western States Petroleum Association, California Independent Petroleum Association, and the Independent Oil Producers Agency are named as real parties in interest.</div><div>
</div><div>"The oil industry is trying to fast-track permitting for thousands of oil wells," plaintiffs' attorney William Rostov told Courthouse News.</div><div>
</div><div>"It's unfortunate that the Board of Supervisors went along with the oil industry on this. Our clients feel they have no other recourse but to take it to court."</div><div>
</div><div>Kern County, at the southern end of the San Joaquin Valley, already has some of the worst air pollution in the country, from oil drilling, pesticides, dust and microparticulates, and ozone from auto and farm machinery exhaust.</div><div>
</div><div>The rezoning violated the California Environmental Quality Act, one of whose purposes is to educate the public about projects in their vicinity, Rostov said.</div><div>
</div><div>He said the new ordinance would drastically transform Kern County and have a "tremendous effect" on water and air quality. The county knows about the impacts, but did not properly analyze them, he said.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;"This is a very important case that could affect Kern for decades to come," Rostov said. "We think we have a very good case."</div><div>
</div><div>According to the lengthy complaint: "Proposed and paid for by the oil industry, the ordinance and the accompanying final environmental impact report ('Final EIR') purport to authorize the development of up to 3,647 new oil and gas wells and extensive associated construction and operation activities, each year for 20 to 25 more years, without any further, site-specific assessment of those activities' health and other environmental impacts. The ordinance jeopardizes the health and well-being of hundreds of thousands of people across Kern County."</div><div>
</div><div>Kern County, population 839,631, at the southern end of the Central Valley. Nearly the size of New Jersey, it extends from Delano, its northernmost city, south to the Tehachapi Mountains, east into the Mojave Desert and west across the San Joaquin Valley.</div><div>
</div><div>Its two biggest industries are agriculture and oil and gas development. Kern produces one-tenth of the nation's petroleum and is the top oil-producing county in California, with 81 percent of the state's active oil wells.</div><div>
</div><div>That number will surge drastically if the amended ordinance, approved on Nov. 9, is allowed to stand, the environmentalists say...</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>However many of these important measures are in trouble in the U.S. California’s landmark legislation is now officially on hold,&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>gma padilla</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-california-plastic-bag-ban-20150223-story.html</div><div>
</div><div>with a referendum to repeal the ban added to the ballot for November 2016. Florida and Arizona have both already passed bills making the banning ofplastic bags illegal. Powerful and large special interest lobbying groups are behind these “ban bans” as well as litigation aimed at already existing bans. Outside interests are funding these efforts to dissuade and dismantle local level legislation. Primary among them is the ProgressiveBag Affiliates, funded by the largest plastic bag manufacturers in the country and the American Chemistry Council.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>[http://ecowatch.com/2015/09/27/worlds-largest-wildlife-corridor-california/ World’s Largest Wildlife Corridor to Be Built in California] 9/15. See [http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/college8core/c8wiki/index.php?title=Category:Wildlife Wildlife].</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>Hello, and thank you.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Earlier this month (on September 11th), SB350 The Kevin de Leon Clean Energy bill passed and was signed--with due credit to all of you who called your assembly reps, and who called out the reps I listed in my last e-mail including Sebastian Ridley Thomas. Thank you for calling those who classically never vote to sign clean energy bills. This one made it.</div><div>
</div><div>It has taken me far too long to share the lukewarm news. Why lukewarm? Because the bill was compromised, of course. It was butchered! I had heard that Republican Assembly reps (who are probably getting corporate kickbacks) negotiated the bill down harshly. You can see the bill in the link below.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>It depresses me. I say "yes, let us celebrate moving forward with this plan for more clean energy by 2030." But why, why is it always a compromise on environmental health? Why is it so hard for these leaders we have elected to 'get it?!' We (and correct me if this was not your motivation in voting for them) voted for our leaders to help us as their constituents. We vote for our leaders as our emissaries, our voices, as our representation! So why, why, why is it so difficult for them to understand that they work for us?! Not for corporations!&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>I leave you with that. Please keep voting and please keep on your reps to protect our; water, air, land and food. It is about our collective survival.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Thank you for caring.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>-Aura Walker (Civilian, Activist and Concerned Parent)</div><div>
</div><div>Link that shows how SB350 was butchered: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB350</div><div>
</div><div>How Governor Brown is voting: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article35665722.html&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>Introduced by Senator De León</div><div>(Coauthor: Senator Hill)</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Ayes: Alejo, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Dababneh, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood, Atkins</div><div>&nbsp;<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Noes: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Cooper, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk</div><div>&nbsp;<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>No Votes Recorded: Brown, Daly, Ridley-Thomas</div><div>&nbsp;=</div><div>
</div><div>http://insideclimatenews.org/news/03092015/california-bill-divest-largest-pension-funds-coal-fossil-fuel</div><div>
</div><div>california is one governor's signature away from becoming the first state to mandate its major public pension funds to at least partially divest from fossil fuel holdings, which could have ripple effects across the nation.</div><div>
</div><div>The California Assembly voted 47 to 30 on Wednesday to mandate the state's two largest pension funds divest from coal assets. It now heads to Gov. Jerry Brown's office for approval. The Senate voted in favor of the measure in June.</div><div>
</div><div>Even though the legislation—Senate Bill 185—awaits the governor's signature, Brown has been a strong advocate of climate action and has helped steer the state toward being a leader in renewable energy, so divestment proponents are already celebrating. RL Miller, chair of the California Democratic Party's environmental caucus, was "very happy" and "giddy" after the vote.</div><div>
</div><div>"This is the beginning of an avalanche," said Miller, who has helped build supportfor fossil fuel divestment within the California Democratic Party for several years.</div><div>
</div><div>The website 350.org, a green group that has supported divestment efforts across the country, lays out the primary argument for divestment as: "If it is wrong to wreck the climate, then it is wrong to profit from that wreckage." Fully divesting involves selling off stocks and bonds tied to oil, natural gas and coal companies, and the process can take months to years.</div><div>
</div><div>Targeted in this bill is the California Public Employees' Retirement System(CalPERS) and&nbsp; California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS), which combined represent more than 2.4 million retirees. They are the country's two largest pension funds, worth nearly $500 billion. Less than one percent of those funds are invested in coal assets.</div><div>
</div><div>The legislation forbids them to make new investments or renew existing investments in coal companies, and mandates they sell their holdings in these companies by July 2017. Prior to divesting, the groups can first encourage the companies to transition to clean energy generation.</div><div>
</div><div>The retirement funds can choose not to divest if it proved to be financially detrimental to the pension funds. But with the coal industry struggling, many supporters of the bill believe divestment is inevitable.</div><div>
</div><div>"Coal is losing value quickly and investing in coal is a losing proposition for our retirees; it's a nuisance to public health; and it's inconsistent with our values as a state on the forefront of efforts to address global climate change," the bill's sponsor, Senate leader Kevin de León, a Democrat, said in a statement.</div><div>
</div><div>Ricardo Duran, a spokesman for CalSTRS, told InsideClimate News in an email: "CalSTRS did not take a position on the bill. We are assessing the level of thermal coal that meets the legislative definition and believe it may be approximately a $40 million holding.</div><div>
</div><div>"Any effort to remove thermal coal from the portfolio must first meet the board’s standard of fiduciary care. CalSTRS' first priority is, and always has been, safeguarding the financial futures of our members and their families, and to make decisions solely in the interest of our members and their beneficiaries."</div><div>
</div><div>Officials from CalPERS said they would comment after the bill is signed.</div><div>
</div><div>Beyond California, lawmakers in several states, such as New York andMassachusetts, have proposed similar legislation this year. The success in California could create "a huge wave of momentum" for other states and the global divestment movement, said Brett Fleishman, a senior analyst for 350.org based in California.</div><div>
</div><div>Emily Kirkland, a divestment activist in Cambridge, Mass., told InsideClimate News, "The decision of the California Assembly to divest from coal is an enormous victory for the growing international divestment movement—and a direct challenge to legislators in Massachusetts, who are considering a bill to divest the state pension fund from coal, oil and gas."</div><div>
</div><div>Kirkland, the communications coordinator for environmental organizations Better Future Project and 350 Massachusetts, added: "Massachusetts could still be the first in the nation to divest from all fossil fuels, but with California moving towards divestment from coal, and other states actively considering even more sweeping divestment bills, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing."</div><div>
</div><div>The California legislative session ends in two weeks and state lawmakers have several climate-related bills to decide on, of which the divestment bill was perhaps the least contentious.</div><div>
</div><div>Lawmakers now have to decide the fate of Senate Bill 350, which requires the state generate at least 50 percent of its energy from renewable sources by the end of 2030, and Senate Bill 32, which sets out an aggressive schedule for state greenhouse gas emission cuts over the coming decades. These bills have drawn a fierce campaign of opposition from the fossil fuel industry, and de León has accused the industry of "fear-mongering."</div><div>
</div><div>So, while RL Miller of the California Democratic Party's environmental caucus was very happy about the divestment bill, Miller told InsideClimate News: "I’ll be happier when SB 350 passes."</div><div>
</div><div>See Also:</div><div>California Democrats Approve Sweeping Fossil Fuel Divestment Resolution</div><div>Mass. Lawmakers Propose a $5 Billion Pension Fund Cleansing</div><div>Map: Tracking Academia's Fossil Fuel Divestment</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;=</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.globalpossibilities.org/california-lost-5-billion-in-public-pension-funds-due-to-fossil-fuel-investments-last-year/</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>6/7/15</div><div>
</div><div>Last week 33 California senators/district reps/ assembly reps voted "No" on Assemblyman Das Williams' Bill AB-356 asking to monitor California's clean groundwater, in order to protect what is left during a 4 year drought, from Fracking waste/toxic chemical disposal/dumping. Even more insulting is the fact that Williams represents Santa Barbara and Ventura County, where an estimated 101,000 gallons of Plains All American Pipeline crude oil leaked on May 19th into Santa Barbara Refugio state beach. Tar is now washing up all the way down to Redondo beach: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-oil-spill-cleanup-extends-to-ventura-county-20150529-story.html</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>I had warned about this in previous posts. Ever since this leak, dolphins, sea lions, pelicans and other wildlife are dying along the coast, especially near the leak site.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Here are the names of those who voted "No" and who do not deserve to represent us in a public office. They have done us a disservice. I urge you to look up your rep and call them if their name is on these lists. Insist they overturn their vote immediately on your behalf.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Who voted No vote on AB-356: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Cheryl Brown, Chang, Chávez, Cooley, Daly, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gray, Grove, Harper, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Salas, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk. And of course Governor Brown has ignored our pleas.</div><div>
</div><div>Here is the list of those who were too wishy washy to vote at all: No Votes Recorded At All: Alejo, Baker, Bonilla, Calderon, Cooper, Dahle, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gonzalez, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones, Low, Medina, O'Donnell, Rodriguez, Weber.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>Don't let the Governor get his way. Help oppose Trailer Bill 831, which creates a broad CEQA exemption for whatever the Governor wants. Urge Senate and Assembly budget leadership to prevent this language from getting into the budget.&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>=&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/02/california-exempts-big-oil-big-ag/?utm_source=EcoWatch+List&utm_campaign=f54b63fd2d-Top_News_4_9_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_49c7d43dc9-f54b63fd2d-85920373</div><div>Drought-Stricken California Exempts Big Oil and Big Ag from Mandatory Restrictions</div><div>Cole Mellino</div><div>
</div><div>The April 1 snowpack assessment in California, which set an all-time record for lowest snowpack levels in the state’s history, finally spurred Governor Brown’s office to issue an executive order to residents and non-agricultural businesses to cut water use by 25 percent in the first mandatory statewide reduction in the state’s history.</div><div>
</div><div>But some groups have been exempted from the water restrictions, specifically big agriculture, which uses about 80 percent of California’s water, and oil companies. Democracy Now! discussed on their show today the new mandates and the implications of exempting some of the biggest water users in the state.</div><div>
</div><div>Food & Water Watch California is one of the groups critical of Governor Brown for failing to cap water usage by oil companies and corporate farms, which grow water-intensive crops like almonds and pistachios, most of which are exported out of state or overseas, reports Nermeen Shaikh of Democracy Now! “In the midst of a severe drought, the governor continues to allow corporate farms and oil interests to deplete and pollute our precious groundwater resources,” says Adam Scow of Food & Water Watch California.</div><div>
</div><div>Shaikh and fellow reporter, Amy Goodman, then turn to Mark Hertsgaard, author of a new book, Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth, and whose latest story is “How Growers Gamed California’s Drought.” Hertsgaard, an expert on big agriculture and the drought in California, discusses how the price of water is far too low and how we’re still wasting far too much water. “If we priced [water] properly, which means a little bit higher, there’s enormous strides California could be taking with water efficiency,” says Hertsgaard. “We could essentially wipe out the effects of the drought.”</div><div>
</div><div>But right now we have billionaire farmers like Stewart Resnick bragging about record profits and record production in water-intensive crops like pistachios, almonds and alfalfa, while poorer communities where farmworkers live “don’t have water coming out of their taps anymore,” says Hertsgaard.</div><div>
</div><div>Watch the full clip here:</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE</div><div>
</div><div>California’s Dire Drought Leads to Record Low Snowpack Levels at 6%, Triggers Mandatory Conservation Measures</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.alternet.org/environment/activists-shut-down-nestle-water-bottling-plant-sacramento</div><div>
</div><div>Environmental and human rights activists, holding plastic “torches” and “pitchforks,” formed human barricades at both entrances to the Nestlé Waters bottling plant in Sacramento at 5:00 a.m. on Friday, March 20, effectively shutting down the company's operations for the day.&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Members of the “Crunch Nestlé Alliance" shouted out a number of chants, including ”We got to fight for our right to water,” “Nestlé, Stop It, Water Not For Profit," and “¿Agua Para Quien? Para Nuestra Gente.”&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>The protesters stayed until about 1 pm, but there were no arrests.</div><div>
</div><div>Representatives of the alliance said the company is draining up to 80 million gallons of water a year from Sacramento aquifers during a record drought. They claim Sacramento City Hall has made it possible through a "corporate welfare giveaway."</div><div>
</div><div>“This corporate welfare giveaway is an outrage and warrants a major investigation,” Coalition spokesperson Andy Conn said. “For more than five months we have requested data on Nestlé water use. City Hall has not complied with our request, or given any indication that it will. Sacramentans deserve to know how their money is being spent and what they’re getting for it. In this case, they’re getting ripped off.”</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-27/california-gun-microstamping-law-is-upheld-by-federal-judge</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>local power:</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>An energy revolution is breaking out in California and a few other states, one that could radically increase the amount of renewable energy available to citizens and end the tyranny of foot-dragging utilities. Outside of the rapidly falling costs of solar power, it’s just about my main source of domestic optimism these days.</div><div>
</div><div>I’m talking about community choice, or, in the horrid legalese, “community choice aggregation.” I’ve discussed it before in passing, but it’s starting to seriously catch on, so I want to take a closer look.</div><div>
</div><div>—</div><div>
</div><div>Say a town, city, or county is dissatisfied with the power it gets from its utility — it’s too expensive, or too dirty. One option would be for each municipality to leave its utility and form its own “municipal utility.” That has its advantages, but it’s a pretty huge step, since the municipality would have to take over not only power procurement but grid operation and maintenance, billing, customer service, etc. In many smaller towns, it’s not practical.</div><div>
</div><div>The other, emerging option is community choice aggregation, whereby a county or municipality takes over only the job of buying and selling power, leaving grid management and billing to the utility. It aggregates customers from every participating city, town, and county and uses their collective purchasing power to procure exactly the kind of electricity it wants.</div><div>
</div><div>The two main motivations to opt for CCA are cheaper power and cleaner power. At least to date, those two goals have not come into conflict. In most cases, CCAs get power that’s cheaper and cleaner than what they were getting from their utility. (Whether those goals conflict in the future will be of keen interest.)</div><div>
</div><div>CCA must be enabled by legislation and it has been in six states: California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and Rhode Island. According to the websiteLocal Power, which tracks these things:</div><div>
</div><div>Today, 5% of the U.S. population is under CCA service for electricity in 1300 municipalities, including well-known population centers like City of Chicago, Cincinnati, Cape Cod, Sonoma County as well as hundreds of less known small towns and rural counties. CCA formation by municipal ordinance or local election is allowed and provided for under state laws governing 25% of the U.S. electricity market.</div><div>
</div><div>—</div><div>
</div><div>California has been particularly on the ball. Marin County started the state’s first CCA program — it now serves 125,000 customers. Sonoma County has followed suit. San Mateo County is considering it; county supervisors just voted to do a study of the proposal. The mayor of San Francisco, who’s running for reelection this year, has reversed his previous opposition to the city joining a CCA. Now he says his only objection was that there wasn’t enough local power required!</div><div>
</div><div>Perhaps the most interesting battle is happening in San Diego. Whereas San Francisco represents only about 5 percent of utility giant PG&E’s customer base, San Diego represents over 40 percent of San Diego Gas & Electric’s. That’s a big chunk to lose!</div><div>
</div><div>CCA is a key part of San Diego’s Climate Action Plan, which among other things commits the city to a legally binding target of 100 percent renewables by 2035. There is effectively no way for it to hit that target if it has to accept whatever power SDG&E sees fit to buy for it.</div><div>
</div><div>There have been various efforts to kill CCA at the state level, some supported by the state chapter of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), many of whose members work for utilities. The local San Diego chapter of IBEW, however, supports the city’s 100 percent renewables target. The fate of the San Diego’s climate plan, or at least CCA’s place in the plan, remains uncertain. It if did go through, it would represent something of a watershed for the CCA movement.</div><div>
</div><div>—</div><div>
</div><div>CCAs vary from place to place, but Cali’s share a few common features. They are opt-out rather than opt-in — customers can choose to remain with the utility, but they have to affirmatively indicate as much. That alone ensures high participation rates (readers of Nudge will understand why).</div><div>
</div><div>There are tiers of participation: in Marin, you can choose a base level 50 percent renewables or pay a premium for 100 percent renewables; in Sonoma, it’s 33 percent or 100 percent. Some also include a premium option for 100 percent localrenewables. The tiered system allows low-income customers to choose an affordable option while more eco-minded or well-off residents can indulge their aspirations.</div><div>
</div><div>CCA can also give a huge boost to a bunch of other policies that utilities typically fight or slow-walk, including net metering, feed-in tariffs, and efficiency programs. This post by Woody Hastings lists a few of the benefits that came along with the Sonoma County CCA. In addition to the basic benefit — giving those consumers more choices in energy — it also has 30 percent lower emissions than the utility, and it boasts rates that are 5 to 8 percent lower than the utility’s (depending on the tier).</div><div>
</div><div>Sonoma’s CCA features a robust net metering program, “NetGreen,” that compensates solar customers better than the utility. It features a version of my own favorite policy, feed-in tariffs, in the form of “ProFiT,” which guarantees clean energy developers favorable terms for the power they feed into the grid. It has doubled the amount of solar in Sonoma County’s energy mix and establishedpower purchase agreements for 70 megawatts of new solar. And it will bring the level of geothermal in the county’s mix up to around 23 percent by 2018.</div><div>
</div><div>Perhaps best of all, enrollment in the plan’s phase-one rollout was much higher than expected: 85 percent of customers stayed with the CCA.</div><div>
</div><div>Not every CCA is going to spur all those policies. But that’s kind of the point: they will enable the exact mix of policies that best expresses the needs and values of their customers. It will give consumers some power and agency in the process, something they haven’t had for some time.</div><div>
</div><div>—</div><div>
</div><div>Is CCA power really cheaper? At least in California, at least so far, yes. These charts come via San Diego reporter Lisa Halverstadt:</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>2014</div><div>
</div><div>California House Races: Logue and Knight Of California's three known ALEC members, two ran for higher office in this election: state Rep. Dan Logue (R-3) for U.S. House district three against incumbent Rep. John Garamendi (D). Garamendi, who outspent Logue, won his race with 52% of the vote. ALEC member state Sen. Steve Knight (R-21) ran for U.S. House district 25 against fellow Republican former state Sen. Tony Strickland. Knight won the election. - See more at: http://www.prwatch.org/node/12654#sthash.DkN3oZ13.dpuf</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>http://ecowatch.com/2014/08/22/california-honeybees/</div><div>
</div><div>dpr stalls</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>AlterNet [1] / By Janet Allon [2]</div><div>
</div><div>Krugman Divulges Real Reason Conservatives Freak Out About California Success Story</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>July 25, 2014&nbsp; |&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>Paul Krugman feels terribly sorry for conservatives who predict doom whenever taxes are rasied slightly, and social programs are delivered, and then, lo and behold, the promised catastrophe does not materialize. You'd think they'd scurry away, tails between legs, issuing mea culpas and feeling horrible about themselves.</div><div>
</div><div>In Friday's column, [3] he discusses California, the "left coast," where Governor Jerry Brown had the audacity to push through a modestly liberal agenda of higher taxes and spending, a higher minimum wage, and enthusiastic implementation of Obamacare.</div><div>
</div><div>The horror, conservatives said. As Krugman writes:</div><div>
</div><div>A representative reaction: Daniel J. Mitchell of the Cato Institute declared that by voting for Proposition 30, which authorized those tax increases, “the looters and moochers of the Golden State” (yes, they really do think they’re living in an Ayn Rand novel) were committing “economic suicide.” [4] Meanwhile, Avik Roy of the Manhattan Institute and Forbes claimed that California residents were about to face a “rate shock” [5] that would more than double health insurance premiums.</div><div>
</div><div>Well, darned if the catastrophe didn't happen. Krugman offers numbers, as he usually does, to bolster his case:</div><div>
</div><div>If tax increases are causing a major flight of jobs from California, you can’t see it in the job numbers. Employment is up 3.6 percent in the past 18 months, compared with a national average of 2.8 percent; at this point, California’s share of national employment, which was hit hard by the bursting of the state’s enormous housing bubble, is back to pre-recession levels.</div><div>
</div><div>On health care, some people — basically healthy young men who were getting inexpensive insurance on the individual market and were too affluent to receive subsidies — did face premium increases, which we always knew would happen. Over all, however, the costs of health reform came in below expectations, while enrollment came in well above — more than tripleinitial predictions in the San Francisco area [6]. A recent survey by the Commonwealth Fund suggests that California has already cut the percentage of its residents without health insurance in half [7]. What’s more, all indications are that further progress is in the pipeline, with more insurance companies entering the marketplace [8] for next year.</div><div>
</div><div>And, yes, the budget is back in surplus [9].</div><div>
</div><div>But does the stubborn right flank ever examine the actual results, search their souls and reconsider their positions? Ha! Instead they just try to downplay the good news. California is not adding jobs as fast as Texas, they say. Gotta be the tax rates.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Krugman's answer to that:</div><div>For the big difference between the two states, aside from the size of the oil and gas sector, isn’t tax rates. it’s housing prices [10]. Despite the bursting of the bubble, home values in California are still double the national average, while in Texas they’re 30 percent below that average. So a lot more people are moving to Texas even though wages and productivity are lower than they are in California.</div><div>
</div><div>And while some of this difference in housing prices reflects geography and population density — Houston is still spreading out, while Los Angeles, hemmed in by mountains, has reached its natural limits — it also reflects California’s highly restrictive land-use policies [11], mostly imposed by local governments rather than the state. As Harvard’s Edward Glaeser has pointed out [12], there is some truth to the claim that states like Texas are growing fast thanks to their anti-regulation attitude, “but the usual argument focuses on the wrong regulations.” And taxes aren’t important at all.</div><div>
</div><div>The lesson of the California comeback is a familiar, but it bears repeating. "You should take anti-government propaganda with large helpings of salt," Krugman writes. "Tax increases aren’t economic suicide; sometimes they’re a useful way to pay for things we need. Government programs, like Obamacare, can work if the people running them want them to work, and if they aren’t sabotaged from the right. In other words, California’s success is a demonstration that the extremist ideology still dominating much of American politics is nonsense."</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>7/3/14</div><div>
</div><div>On Monday, thanks to overwhelming grassroots support, the California Assembly passed the Overturn Citizens United Act by a vote of 49-22! Governor Jerry Brown now has only a few weeks to sign the bill -- which will put it on the ballot for voters to decide this November.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>http://insideclimatenews.org/breaking-news/20140529/california-joins-7-other-states-put-33m-zero-emission-vehicles-road</div><div>
</div><div>California Joins 7 Other States to Put 3.3M Zero-Emission Vehicles on Road</div><div>May 29, 2014</div><div>(Mercury News)</div><div>California leads the nation in electric vehicle sales, and now is joining forces with Oregon and several Northeastern states to put 3.3 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2025.</div><div>
</div><div>Gov. Jerry Brown and his counterparts in Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont signed a set of agreements Thursday that includes adding zero-emission vehicles to public fleets and harmonizing building codes to make it easier to install electric-vehicle charging stations.</div><div>
</div><div>"This is not just an agreement but a serious and profoundly important commitment," Brown, long a champion of electric vehicles, said in a statement. "From coast to coast, we're charging ahead to get millions of the world's cleanest vehicles on our roads."</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201405010850/b</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/27/6356478/big-business-channels-money-to.html</div><div>
</div><div>The Public Eye: Big business channels money to California’s moderate Democrats</div><div>By Laurel Rosenhall</div><div>lrosenhall@sacbee.com</div><div>Published: Sunday, Apr. 27, 2014 - 12:00 am</div><div>Last Modified: Thursday, May. 1, 2014 - 9:58 am</div><div>They are Democrats, yet their votes in the Capitol have helped big business continue fracking in California and defeat a bill dictating pay and benefit levels for Wal-Mart workers.</div><div>
</div><div>As California’s Republican Party shrinks, the influence of moderate Democrats in the Capitol is growing. But pinning down exactly who belongs to the group is not easy.</div><div>
</div><div>Unlike caucuses organized around political parties or ethnic identity, the so-called moderate caucus has no government-paid staff, and the group is not officially recognized by the Legislature.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/27/6356478/big-business-channels-money-to.html#storylink=cpy</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>..,.Unlike caucuses organized around political parties or ethnic identity, the so-called moderate caucus has no government-paid staff, and the group is not officially recognized by the Legislature.</div><div>
</div><div>“The question I always get when I go give speeches about the mods is, ‘Who are you guys? Is there a website? A roster?’ ” said Assemblyman Henry Perea, the Fresno Democrat who leads the loosely defined caucus. “The answer is ‘no.’ ”</div><div>
</div><div>Instead, the center of operations is an art-filled office in midtown Sacramento, where two political entrepreneurs have created a hub that fosters ties among major corporations – including energy companies, drugmakers and insurers – and lawmakers who cast swing votes affecting the industries’ bottom lines. These business-friendly Democrats can serve as a balancing influence against the liberal wing of their party and its historic ties to environmentalists, trial lawyers and unions.</div><div>
</div><div>The two consultants – David Townsend and Chris Tapio – have created a multifaceted operation in their I Street office to build the moderate caucus. They work behind the scenes to raise money from corporate interests, pour it into political campaigns and run an industry-funded nonprofit group that pays for “policy retreats” on business issues. Together, they serve as the fundraising and policy arms of the Legislature’s moderate caucus.</div><div>
</div><div>The setup has never been challenged by California’s political watchdog. Few lawmakers or lobbyists are willing to discuss it publicly. Yet the operation has triggered hushed complaints from those left out of the loop that outside interests have found an influential path around the traditional legislative system.</div><div>
</div><div>“What you don’t want to have is a situation where private interests are underwriting de facto staff or the political operation of elected officials. The whole idea for elected officials is that they are beholden to taxpayers, not special interests,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center in Washington, D.C.</div><div>
</div><div>“When you have these caucuses and special groups, the problem crops up that the lines become very murky.”</div><div>
</div><div>Townsend and Tapio are not registered as lobbyists. They say they don’t urge any action on specific bills. But they have used money from businesses that do lobby the Legislature to build a political infrastructure that puts the two consultants close to key decision-makers. Through campaign donations and gifts of meals and travel, their operation has touched about half the Democrats in the state Assembly and about one-fifth of Senate Democrats.</div><div>
</div><div>Townsend is a veteran political consultant who was a strategist on Gov. Jerry Brown’s election four years ago and managed both of Kevin Johnson’s successful campaigns for Sacramento mayor. He helped run the campaign for the 2010 measure – placed on the ballot by the Legislature – that created nonpartisan legislative primaries with the goal of attracting more moderate candidates of both parties.</div><div>
</div><div>Success of that measure likely will grow the bloc of Democrats that make up the moderate caucus, for which Townsend serves as a political consultant. He manages its political action committee, which works to elect moderate Democrats by both giving directly to candidates and mounting independent campaigns.</div><div>
</div><div>“We want people up here who are thoughtful, who can work together and find a way to compromise,” Townsend said. “All we’re about is trying to cook a better product.”</div><div>
</div><div>‘The chance to come in’</div><div>
</div><div>Since 2009, Townsend’s Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy PAC has spent $5.7 million, campaign finance filings show. Roughly a quarter of that has gone toward fundraising events at golf resorts and fine restaurants, where corporate donors and their lobbyists mingle with a handful of Democratic legislators. The PAC pays a fundraising company owned by Tapio’s wife, Carrie McKinley, to put on the events.</div><div>
</div><div>Tapio runs a nonprofit called the California Issues Forum, which further connects moderate Democrats with business representatives over meals, panel discussions and industry tours. Last year, state legislators reported receiving nearly $17,200 worth of hospitality from the California Issues Forum on their statements of economic interest. The group took lawmakers to San Francisco to meet with drugmakers and tour biopharmaceutical companies, and to San Diego for a discussion with oil industry leaders and air quality regulators on transportation infrastructure and California’s law to reduce pollution.</div><div>
</div><div>An overlapping list of donors support Tapio’s nonprofit as well as Townsend’s PAC and his public affairs firm, Townsend Raimundo Besler & Usher. Townsend does not get paid by the PAC he operates, but a few of its contributors, including PG&E and the California Hospital Association, are paying clients of his firm.</div><div>
</div><div>The California Issues Forum takes in roughly $500,000 a year in donations, annual tax filings show, and pays six-figure salaries to both Townsend and Tapio. While the law doesn’t require nonprofit groups to disclose their donors, Tapio provided a list at The Bee’s request. It shows that real estate interests, oil companies and health care businesses that provide the bulk of the funding for Townsend’s PAC also contribute to Tapio’s nonprofit.</div><div>
</div><div>Some donors to Townsend’s PAC, including Chevron and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., also support another nonprofit Tapio runs to advance Johnson’s efforts as Sacramento mayor to create a “strong mayor” system, build a new arena and promote the arts.</div><div>
</div><div>Many of the businesses that contribute to the moderate caucus PAC also give campaign donationsdirectly to candidates. But giving to the PAC provides additional political benefits to corporate donors, allowing them to give more than the law allows them to contribute to individual candidates, while simultaneously currying favor with multiple lawmakers. About two dozen sitting lawmakers have received campaign support from the PAC, either through direct contributions or independent campaigns to help them.</div><div>
</div><div>PG&E, for example, gave the PAC $35,000 on a single day last June – far more than the $4,100 it is permitted to give an individual lawmaker’s campaign.</div><div>
</div><div>In 2013, six senators and 26 Assembly members reported gifts from the California Issues Forum, ranging from a $9.77 breakfast for Sen. Marty Block of San Diego to more than $1,900 worth of meals and trips for Perea, the assemblyman who heads the moderate caucus.</div><div>
</div><div>“It’s not that the money corrupts people. The money finds people that agree with whoever has the money,” Townsend said. “You’re not using the money to convince somebody.”</div><div>
</div><div>But the money does help get your argument heard, said Alex Creel, chief lobbyist for the California Association of Realtors, which has been the biggest donor to the moderate caucus PAC since 2009, contributing more than $800,000.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/27/6356478/big-business-channels-money-to.html#storylink=cpy</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>...‘Bills of concern’</div><div>
</div><div>Perea said the moderates are a self-defined and shifting group of lawmakers who generally represent districts where voters are closely split between Democrats and Republicans. Their communities are largely blue-collar, he said, and face both high unemployment and environmental problems that include poor air and water quality.</div><div>
</div><div>“We understand that we need industries to create more jobs,” Perea said. “But we want to do it in a way where we’re recognizing the environmental issues that may result from those jobs.”</div><div>
</div><div>He touted the moderate caucus’s role last year in shaping legislation concerning the oil extraction method known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Environmentalists originally sought to ban fracking altogether, but Perea’s caucus objected, saying the jobs were too important for California. Moderate Democrats successfully negotiated a bill that regulated fracking but didn’t ban the process, causing the environmentalists who originally supported the bill to oppose it.</div><div>
</div><div>As the “convener” of the moderate caucus, Perea puts together monthly lunch meetings where advocates can talk to legislators about their issues. Recent meetings have featured private college leaders asking lawmakers to restore cuts in Cal Grant scholarship funding, Perea said, and an association for apartment building owners discussing new bills that would restrict their ability to evict tenants. That group, the California Apartment Association, has contributed $97,500 to the moderate caucus PAC since 2009.</div><div>
</div><div>Perea also manages a list of bills – one he will not make public – that the moderate caucus is working to amend or kill.</div><div>
</div><div>“We really look at each piece of legislation and we think, ‘OK, what does this mean for jobs and what does this mean on the regulatory environment?’ ” Perea said. “Then we get input from everybody – from the industries that are affected, from the advocates that are pushing the measure.”</div><div>
</div><div>Perea’s list – “bills of concern,” he calls it – is distributed electronically, only to lawmakers he considers part of the moderate caucus. Its secretive nature is a source of annoyance to legislators and lobbyists who suspect their measures are on the list.</div><div>
</div><div>Sen. Loni Hancock, a liberal Democrat from Berkeley, said she thinks many of her bills have been targeted. She’s currently trying to revive one from last year that she put on hold when it ran into opposition from moderate Democrats in the Assembly.</div><div>
</div><div>Hancock’s SB 691 calls for increasing the penalties from $10,000 to $100,000 on companies that emit toxic air pollution in a catastrophic incident. She introduced it in response to the 2012 fire at the Chevron refinery in Richmond that sent thousands of people to seek medical care for problems including eye, throat and respiratory irritation.</div><div>
</div><div>Hancock said Chevron never came to her to lobby against the bill, and the company does not report SB 691 as a bill it lobbied last year. But Chevron is a big political donor, and has given the moderate caucus $505,000 since 2009, making it the second-largest contributor to Townsend’s PAC. It also donates to Tapio’s nonprofit group.</div><div>
</div><div>“I think it’s like ‘follow the money,’ ” Hancock said. “Most of the money for campaigns comes from PACs and corporations. Does it have an influence in what is possible in terms of legislation? I think the public needs to look and judge for itself.”</div><div>
</div><div>‘Sitting in the middle’</div><div>
</div><div>The moderate caucus was launched in 1998, Townsend said, in response to a battle between a liberal Assembly speaker and a handful of more moderate Democrats. That year, a half-dozen Democrats in the Assembly wanted to vote against a bill by then-Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa that would have increased the amount of pain-and-suffering damages courts can award victims of medical malpractice.</div><div>
</div><div>Their opposition was enough to doom the bill, Townsend said, prompting the lawyer lobby pushing for it to threaten campaigns to run the six Assembly members out of office.</div><div>
</div><div>“The decision was made by the six – we better raise some money to protect ourselves from the trial lawyers,” Townsend said.</div><div>
</div><div>And the moderate caucus was born, he said, using PAC money from business groups to elect Democrats who would counter the liberal arm of the party.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/27/6356478/big-business-channels-money-to.html#storylink=cpy....</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>WSP chevron 9 mil lobby frack sacramento 4/14</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Californians On Climate Change: 65 Percent Call For Immediate Action On Environmental Issues</div><div>Ventura County Star&nbsp; |&nbsp; By Timm Herdt</div><div>Posted: 08/01/2013 9:27 am EDT&nbsp;</div><div>Californians, apparently feeling better about the state's economic prospects, believe more strongly than ever that their state government should act immediately to combat climate change by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.</div><div>
</div><div>That was among the findings of a poll conducted by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, which surveys state residents each year on a range of environmental issues.</div><div>
</div><div>Nearly two-thirds of Californians, or 65 percent, said the state should "take action right away" rather than wait until the economy improves. That was 9 percentage points higher than last year and the highest level since pollsters began asking the question in 2008.</div><div>
</div><div>"If we look at what's changed over time, it's attitudes about the economy," pollster Mark Baldassare said. "There's more confidence going forward."</div><div>
</div><div>The poll surveyed 2,103 residents in landline and cellphone interviews conducted July 9-23. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.</div><div>
</div><div>The percentage of those who desire action nearly matches the percentage of Californians (63 percent) who believe the effects of global warming already have begun. Also, 22 percent believe the effects will manifest in the future, while 11 percent believe there will never be any effects.</div><div>
</div><div>More than three-quarters of respondents said they consider global warming a very or somewhat serious threat to California's future economy and quality of life. Among a list of potential threats, most cited concerns about wildfires that are more severe.</div><div>
</div><div>On other environmental issues, a slight majority, or 51 percent, said they oppose increased use of hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, the oil-drilling process in which a mixture of water, sand and chemicals is injected at high pressure into wells as a means to create fractures in subsurface rocks. Only 35 percent said they favor increased use.</div><div>
</div><div>In addition, 50 percent of adults, including 62 percent of those who said they support its increased use, favor stricter regulations on fracking.</div><div>
</div><div>Those findings come as the state appears poised for a resurgence of oil drilling as energy companies search for techniques that will allow them to tap the Monterey Shale formation, said to be the largest source of shale petroleum reserves in the nation.</div><div>
</div><div>One technique is expected to be the increased use of fracking. The state has no existing regulations on the practice, and efforts are underway both administratively and in the Legislature to adopt rules to require disclosure of chemicals used in the process, advance notification and before-and-after testing of groundwater to detect possible contamination.</div><div>
</div><div>Californians feel differently about another major oil-related issue, the construction of the controversial Keystone pipeline to transport Canadian oil supplies to refineries in Texas. A slight majority, or 51 percent, of Californians support construction of the pipeline, with 34 percent opposed.</div><div>
</div><div>Consistent with findings from last year, Californians remain opposed to both additional oil drilling off the coast and construction of nuclear power plants.</div><div>
</div><div>As recently as 2009, state residents were closely divided on those issues, and in fact a slight majority had emerged in support of offshore oil drilling. But support for offshore oil plummeted after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, as did support for nuclear power plants after a nuclear plant in Japan was the site of a meltdown after a 2011 earthquake and tsunami.</div><div>
</div><div>The poll also measured public approval ratings for Gov. Jerry Brown and President Barack Obama.</div><div>
</div><div>Support for Brown among likely voters reached its highest level since his election three years ago, at 54 percent.</div><div>
</div><div>Obama received 54 percent approval among registered voters, down from 58 percent in May but up from 53 percent a year earlier. _</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 05:09 PM PDT</div><div>
</div><div>Californians Oppose Expanded Fracking</div><div>by Dan BacherFollow</div><div>
</div><div>A new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) reveals that the majority of Californian residents oppose expanded fracking in the Golden State.</div><div>
</div><div>Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) employs huge volumes of water, mixed with sand and toxic chemicals, to blast open rock formations and extract oil and gas. The technique is environmentally destructive, resulting in pollution to groundwater supplies and streams, as documented in the documentary films Gasland 1 and 2, directed by Josh Fox.</div><div>
</div><div>"As state legislators debate stricter regulations on fracking—already under way in California—51 percent oppose increased use of the drilling method used to extract oil and natural gas (35% favor it, 14% don’t know)," according to PPIC,&nbsp; a nonpartisan research foundation. "Asked whether they favor or oppose stricter regulation of fracking, 50 percent say they are in favor. Among those who favor increased use of fracking, 62 percent also favor stricter regulation."</div><div>
</div><div>The controversial technique, currently unregulated and unmonitored by California officials, has been used in hundreds and perhaps thousands of oil and gas wells across the state, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.</div><div>
</div><div>The survey asked about another hotly debated plan to increase the supply of oil: construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to carry oil from Canada to Texas refineries. Half of Californians (51%) favor building the pipeline, 34 percent oppose it, and 15 percent don’t know.</div><div>
</div><div>"Californians are conflicted when it comes to controversial efforts to expand the oil supply,” said Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO. "Slim majorities favor building the Keystone XL pipeline but also oppose fracking, with many wanting stricter regulation of the practice.”&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Delta advocates fear that much of the water destined for the proposed peripheral tunnels under the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) will be used to expand fracking in California. The tunnels will hasten the extinction of Central Valley Chinook salmon, steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other fish species.</div><div>
</div><div>As oil companies gear up to frack massive petroleum deposits in the Monterey Shale and build the Keystone XL Pipeline, the poll also found that 65 percent of Californians say the state should act immediately to cut greenhouse gas emissions.</div><div>
</div><div>The poll — the second this summer to find strong California opposition to fracking — puts new pressure on state lawmakers and regulators and Gov. Jerry Brown to halt fracking expansion in the state. A USC/Los Angeles Times poll in June found that more than half of California voters — 58 percent — favor a moratorium on fracking.</div><div>
</div><div>It's time for a fracking moratorium</div><div>
</div><div>“Californians are telling pollsters and policymakers they don’t want fracking pollution fouling up our state,” said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity. “There’s strong public support for a moratorium on this dangerous practice. We need to stop the oil industry’s fracking expansion now, while there’s still time to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink and the climate we depend on."</div><div>
</div><div>Oil companies, represented by the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), are increasingly interested in fracking the Monterey Shale, an oil-laden geological formation beneath some of the state’s most productive farmland, important wildlife habitat and scores of towns and cities.</div><div>
</div><div>"Fracking routinely uses numerous toxic chemicals, including methanol and benzene. A recent Colorado School of Public Health study found that fracking increases cancer risk and contributes to serious neurological and respiratory problems in people living near fracked wells," according to Siegel.</div><div>
</div><div>Fish and wildlife are also at risk. Fish, including endangered Central Valley Chinook salmon and steelhead, can die when fracking fluid contaminates streams and rivers. Birds can be poisoned by chemicals in wastewater ponds and the intense industrial development that accompanies fracking pushes threatened or endangered animals out of wild areas they need to survive, Siegel stated.</div><div>
</div><div>"Drilling and fracking also release huge amounts of methane, an extremely powerful global warming gas," said Siegel. "Methane is about 105 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas over a 20-year period. Burning the estimated 15.5 billion barrels of oil in the Monterey Shale will generate more than 6.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to calculations based on Environmental Protection Agency figures."</div><div>
</div><div>Besides threatening groundwater supplies, endangered salmon and steelhead in the state's rivers and bird populations through the state, fracking also poses an enormous rise to California's marine waters.</div><div>
</div><div>Ocean fracking operations in Santa Barbara Channel approved</div><div>
</div><div>An investigative piece by Mike Ludwig at www.truthout.org on July 25 has confirmed that federal regulators approved at least two fracking operations on oil rigs in the Santa Barbara Channel off the coast of California since 2009 without an updated environmental review that critics say may be required by federal law.</div><div>
</div><div>These operations were approved as state officials and corporate "environmental" NGO representatives gushed about the alleged "Yosemites of the Sea" and "underwater parks" created in Southern California waters under the "leadership" of Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of the Western States Petroleum Association.</div><div>
</div><div>"The offshore fracking operations are smaller than the unconventional onshore operations that have sparked nationwide controversy, but environmental advocates are still concerned that regulators and the industry have not properly reviewed the potential impacts of using modern fracking technology in the Pacific outer continental shelf," said Ludwig. (http://www.truth-out.org/...)&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>"Oil drilling remains controversial in Santa Barbara, where the memory of the nation's third-largest oil spill lingers in the minds of the public. In 1969, the nation watched as thick layer of oil spread across the channel and its beaches following a blowout on an oil rig, killing thousands of marine birds other wildlife. The dramatic images helped spark the modern environmental movement and establish landmark federal environmental laws that eco-groups continue to challenge the government to enforce," Ludwig noted.</div><div>
</div><div>The current push by the oil industry to expand fracking in California, build the Keystone XL Pipeline and eviscerate environmental laws was made possible because state officials and MLPA Initiative advocates greenwashed the key role Reheis-Boyd and the oil industry played in creating marine protected areas that don't protect the ocean.</div><div>
</div><div>Reheis-Boyd chaired the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force to create alleged "marine protected areas" that fail to the protect the ocean from fracking, oil drilling and spills, pollution, military testing, wind and wave energy projects and all human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering. She also served on the task forces for the Central Coast, North Central Coast and North Coast.</div><div>
</div><div>Reheis-Boyd apparently used her role as a state marine "protection" official to increase her network of influence in California politics to the point where the Western States Petroleum Association has become the most powerful corporate lobby in California. The association now has enormous influence over both state and federal regulators. (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/...)</div><div>
</div><div>Oil and gas companies spend more than $100 million a year to buy access to lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento, according to Stop Fooling California (http://www.stopfoolingca.org), an online and social media public education and awareness campaign that highlights oil companies' efforts to mislead and confuse Californians. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) alone has spent more than $16 million lobbying in Sacramento since 2009.</div><div>
</div><div>As the oil industry expands its role in California politics and environmental processes, you can bet that they are going to use every avenue they can to get more water for fracking, including taking Delta water through the peripheral tunnels proposed under the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP).</div><div>
</div><div>The industry will also use its power to expand fracking in the ocean, as evidenced by the recent approval of ocean fracking operations off the Southern California coast, unless Californians rise up and resist these plans!</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;=</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>main</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>capt 918</div><div>
</div><div>see CA tag; newer content at CA2 node</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Environmental_Quality_Act</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>HISTORIC LAWSUIT AGAINST UN AGENDA 21</div><div>FILED OCTOBER 15, 2013</div><div>The Post Sustainability Institute / Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 and Freedom Advocates are launching a legal challenge to PLAN BAY AREA/ONE BAY AREA (click for a pdf of the Plan)&nbsp; &nbsp;PLAN BAY AREA is an aggressive implementation of UN Agenda 21's "islands of human habitation."&nbsp; We believe that Priority Development Areas are the new wave of implementation of UN Agenda 21 in regional plans.&nbsp; This prototype, when adopted in the San Francisco Bay Area, could then move across the United States.&nbsp; &nbsp;...</div><div>
</div><div>PLAN BAY AREA is an all-encompassing land use and transportation plan that regionalizes all 9 counties and 101 cities of the San Francisco Bay Area by limiting new construction to specific locations (only 4% of the land area) and requiring high density development: more apartments and condos on top of shops.&nbsp; If cities want federal and state transportation dollars they will have to agree to this Sustainable Communities Strategies plan.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>PLAN BAY AREA is UN AGENDA 21.&nbsp; ICLEI WORKED ON CREATING THIS PLAN.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>PLAN BAY AREA violates both the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.&nbsp; The 5th amendment guarantees property owners the right to just compensation, and the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection.</div><div>http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/lawsuit-to-stop-agenda-21.html</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>CA</div><div>
</div><div>SB 1272 that would put a MTA measure on the statewide ballot has passed out of the Senate and is headed to the Assembly. They may actually beat the looming deadline.</div><div>http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1272</div><div>
</div><div>BTW, it passed on a 23-12 vote. Every one of the 12 are Republicans.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>We did it!&nbsp; On Wednesday, Governor Brown signed SB 27, the bill to force Dark Money non-profits to reveal their secret funders in California elections.</div><div>
</div><div>Here's what I said about it in the Sacramento Bee:</div><div>
</div><div>“Governor Brown’s signature of SB 27 marks a turning point in the fight to reveal secret funders of political campaigns. It starts to shed light on dark money in California and serves as an example for the entire nation."</div><div>
</div><div>Here's the full story in the Sacramento Bee:</div><div>http://www.sacbee.com/2014/05/14/6406111/gov-brown-signs-law-requiring.html</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>SB 27 (Correa) closes a “dark money” loophole that lets nonprofits and other organizations make huge donations to California campaigns without disclosing the true source of the money. Also, large committees supporting or opposing ballot measures will have to list their top contributors on the Internet.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>I just heard about SB-1272, a bill to put onto the November ballot "an advisory question asking whether the Congress of the United States should propose, and the California legislature Legislatureshould ratify, an amendment or amendments to the United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, as specified."</div><div>
</div><div>The good news is that SB-1272 passed the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee on a 4-1 vote. Now it must pass the&nbsp;</div><div>Committee on Appropriations before going to the entire Senate and then over to the Assembly. Learn more at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1272&search_keywords=</div><div>
</div><div>Ayes: Hancock, Jackson, Padilla, Torres</div><div>&nbsp;<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>Noes: Anderson only gop http://district36.cssrc.us/</div><div>http://sapro.senate.ca.gov/</div><div>
</div><div>Senator Kevin de León (Chair) south pasadena</div><div>Senator Mimi Walters (Vice Chair) newport beach GOP</div><div>Senator Ted Gaines (R–Roseville)</div><div>Senator Jerry Hill san mateo</div><div>Senator Ricardo Lara D long beach</div><div>Senator Alex Padilla san fernando</div><div>Senator Darrell Steinberg distr 6 sacra</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>gov brown not helpful but&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Los Angeles Moves Closer To City Fracking Moratorium 2/14</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>history: http://archive.org/stream/californiaintima00athe/californiaintima00athe_djvu.txt</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>It all started with California's landmark bipartisan climate bill, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006—better known as AB32—which EDF co-sponsored, has defended in court and in public debate. The law authorized the state to establish a cap-and-trade carbon market with a declining emissions cap, reaching 1990 emissions levels by 2020.</div><div>
</div><div>In 2013, California launched North America's first economy-wide cap-and-trade program—currently covering 350 of the state's largest greenhouse gas polluters. The Golden State has also set rigorous standards for cleaner cars, renewable energy and low-carbon fuels, sparking innovations in the way utilities generate electricity, automakers design cars and refineries make fuel.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist lhenry@bakersfield.com</div><div>House Speaker John Boehner dug his shiny loafers into a swath of powder dry Kern County dirt on Wednesday and promised to move quickly on legislation aimed at easing the pain of California's historic drought.</div><div>
</div><div>Boehner and his partners on the legislation -- House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, and Rep. David Valadao, R-Hanford -- all agreed that, yes, the drought is the biggest obstacle to farmers getting adequate water in the near term.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>But they denounced as "idiocy" and "nonsense" California's management of its water system.</div><div>
</div><div>"In my part of the world we would shake our heads at how things work here, " Boehner said. "It's nonsense that a bureaucracy would favor fish over people."</div><div>
</div><div>He referred to the delta smelt and other fish protected under the Endangered Species Act. In an attempt to bolster those populations, water exports from the San Joaquin-Sacramento delta have been curtailed.</div><div>
</div><div>The proposed bill would attempt to bring "reason" to how the system is managed, if only during the drought emergency, the politicians said.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>The bill has yet to be written, but its three main prongs would seek to increase pumping out of the delta -- if water is available -- to agreed-upon 1994 levels, suspend the San Joaquin River restoration settlement and create a Senate-House task force to come up with long term solutions.</div><div>
</div><div>The consequences of the drought were brought into sharp focus when local farmer Larry Starrh talked about his family being forced to let 1,000 acres of productive almond trees die this year for lack of water.</div><div>
</div><div>"Water is life," he said, his voice thick with emotion. "But sadly in this world, water has become about power, water is used as a weapon."</div><div>
</div><div>As real and painful as the water situation is, there was more than a hint of politics lurking around the edges of Wednesday's press conference. The first two prongs of the proposed bill have already been rejected by the Senate last year. Increased pumping and suspension of the San Joaquin River restoration agreement were both parts of H.R. 1837, introduced by Nunes, passed by the House and left to whither and die on the steps of the Senate.</div><div>
</div><div>Though all the politicians at Wednesday's conference insisted this bill was different because it would implement those measures on an emergency-only basis, Senate reaction is likely to be the same.</div><div>
</div><div>Indeed, a press release from Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office Wednesday warned that "I am concerned that (the new proposed bill) may follow the pattern of previous House bills which seek to either preempt state law or waive state water quality and Endangered Species Act requirements which could spur serious litigation and likely delay any action."</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>The likelihood of strong opposition cast Wednesday's event in a suspect light. Was it a sincere attempt to help California in a time of need or an unofficial reelection kickoff for Valadao, who is being heavily targeted by Democrats?</div><div>
</div><div>While Boehner's presence brought a great deal more media attention to California's water plight, any meaningful change in federal law or a federal-state partnership would have to get Senate buy-in, meaning Feinstein, who's long been a heavyweight in California water politics, not Boehner.</div><div>
</div><div>However, if freshman Valadao needed a boost to help loosen wallets before the mid-term elections this fall, Boehner would be a great leg up. Since Valadao, himself a dairy farmer, has made water a key issue, Wednesday's event would look to be a smooth political fit.</div><div>
</div><div>Meanwhile, California's reaction to the proposed bill pitched by Boehner, et al, was wary.</div><div>
</div><div>John Laird, secretary of the state's Natural Resources Agency, provided testimony in 2011 vehemently opposing Nunes' bill, H.R. 1837. The state was particularly upset by the portions of H.R. 1837 that would have set pumping levels at those agreed to in 1994 and suspension of the San Joaquin River restoration settlement, which he said would essentially toss out California water law and upend long held water rights.</div><div>
</div><div>The exact same measures are being discussed for this new bill, albeit on an emergency basis only.</div><div>
</div><div>In an email on Wednesday, Laird said that if this new bill proves sufficiently similar to the old H.R. 1837, the state would again stand in opposition.</div><div>
</div><div>"We are rarely forced to confront water allocations this low, salinity in the delta, and difficulty moving water during a crisis. Now is not the time to be divided -- now is the time to bring people together to find solutions," Laird said.</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x22866465/Boehner-comes-to-Kern-to-pitch-water-bill</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/28/2850021/california-oregon-washington-british-columbia-agreement/</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>In California, we like to go first.</div><div>
</div><div>Over 60 years ago, we became the first state in the nation to adopt aggressive air pollution regulations, which made us a global leader in protecting human health. Many decades later, our positive experience growing the economy while cleaning the air gave our leaders the confidence to adopt aggressive climate protection standards – which will lead to even cleaner air while unleashing investment in clean technologies that address climate change.</div><div>
</div><div>So it's no surprise that, when someone comes along claiming that what California really needs is a new oil drilling boom, we look at them with some skepticism. Such is the case with the Monterey Shale, which may (or may not) be on the cusp of delivering California to an oily nirvana (though it's worth noting that California is still the number three oil producer in the U.S.). We're leaning in the "may not" category, and we've got good company: The latest in our series on the Monterey Shale, out this week, includes an assessment by the world's leading oil analysts, IHS CERA, who see zero net economic benefit for many years – if ever - from the Monterey Shale. California's leaders might take a cue from these experts, and maintain their own healthy skepticism about the Monterey Shale's potential.</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>Crossroads GPS, the dark money political organization linked to Republican operative Karl Rove, apparently gave $2 million last year to Americans for Job Security, a group that was involved in a scheme in California to funnel $11 million into efforts aimed at two state ballot initiatives.</div><div>
</div><div>A state investigation into the movement of money found that AJS, also a dark money nonprofit, sent the $11 million through three other organizations in an attempt to hide the identities of its donors. California election authorities called it "the largest contribution ever disclosed as campaign money-laundering in California history" and demanded disclosure of the donors.</div><div>
</div><div>In a settlement today, after a grand jury investigation, the Center to Protect Patient Rightsand Americans for Responsible Leadership -- two of the groups through which money was channeled -- agreed to pay a fine of $500,000 each, which together amounts to the largest campaign-reporting fine ever levied by the watchdog agency. CPPR has been a major clearinghouse of contributions to other conservative dark money groups. Both CPPR and ARL have strong ties to the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, major donors to conservative political causes. CPPR received $115 million from the Koch-spearheaded group Freedom Partners last year.</div><div>
</div><div>In addition, the agency released a list of AJS donors the state obtained in its investigation. The document, much of which is redacted, contains enough information to identify some of the large donors.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/24/3709096_p2/calif-pacs-reach-1m-campaign-finance.html#storylink=cpy</div><div>Crossroads GPS spent more than $70 million on independent expenditures in the 2012 elections, but apparently had enough to give to other dark money groups as well.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Some other major Republican donors are on the list, such as Miriam and Sheldon Adelson, who gave $250,000 each. The Adelsons were major donors to Republican super PACs in 2012, giving nearly $100 million to such groups as American Crossroads (the super PAC affiliate of Crossroads GPS) and the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future.</div><div>
</div><div>Other donors included:</div><div>
</div><div>Jesse Rogers of Altman Capital, $450,000</div><div>Greg Penner of Wal Mart, $500,000</div><div>Margaret Bloomfield of Baron Real Estate Fund, $500,000</div><div>Glen Stearns and Stearns Lending, $250,000</div><div>The Tulley and Elise Friedman Fund, $100,000</div><div>The American Council of Engineering Companies of California, $500,000</div><div>Wayne Hughes, $450,000</div><div>Hitchcock Automotive, $100,000</div><div>The Los Angeles Times identified other donors: The Fisher family, for instance, which owns the Gap clothing empire, gave more than $9 million, according to the Times.</div><div>
</div><div>According to the Associated Press, CPPR said that the settlement included a recognition by the state that the group didn't intend to conceal information but made a mistake "largely because it had never previously made any contributions" in California. "The Commission today recognized that CPPR acted in 'good faith' and that there was absolutely no intent to violate campaign reporting rules," attorney Malcolm Segal said in a statement.</div><div>
</div><div>The money flowed like this: AJS raised $29 million. It gave nearly $25 million of it to CPPR, which in turn gave $18 million to Americans for Responsible Leadership. ARL gave $11 million to the Small Business Action Committee, which put it toward fighting one state ballot initiative that would have meant higher taxes and supporting another that would have reduced the political power of labor unions. The Small Business committee was ordered Thursday to pay $11 million to the state.&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>CPPR also gave $7 million to the American Future Fund, which sent $4 million on to the California Future Fund for Free Markets. The California group, which supported the anti-union ballot measure, was ordered by the state watchdog agency to pay a penalty equivalent to the sum it received. None of those organizations disclose their donors, though they are all engage in extensive political activity. The American Future Fund spent more than $25 million at the federal level in the 2012 elections.</div><div>
</div><div>A call and email to Crossroads GPS were not returned at the time of this post.</div><div>
</div><div>Political Nonprofits Investigator Robert Maguire and Money-in-Politics Reporter Russ Choma contributed to this post.</div><div>
</div><div>Image: Sean Noble, head of the Center to Protect Patient Rights, via his Twitter account.</div><div>Tags: adelson, american crossroads, california fair political practices commissio center to protect patient rights, crossroads gps, dark money, shadow money trail viveca novak</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>PR Watch [1] / By Mary Bottari [2]</div><div>The Fight to Take Public Assets Back from Private Control May Be Winning in California</div><div>October 30, 2013&nbsp; |&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>While high profile privatizations have dominated the news in recent years, a new trend is quietly emerging -- communities taking public assets back under public control. The trend is most pronounced in the area of water resources. In communities across the country, people are deciding that water is just too precious to subject to the profit motive.</div><div>
</div><div>No state has seen more of these "reverse" privatizations than California. Today, multiple towns are fighting for-profit firms for control of the public's water. One of those firms is the New Jersey-based for-profit American Water (known as California American Water Co. or Cal Am in California).</div><div>
</div><div>On the scenic Monterey Peninsula, a citizen's group called "Public Water Now" makes a compelling case for public control of the peninsula's scarce water resources. Public Water Now alleges that Cal Am's long-term mismanagement of the water resources and failed efforts to secure new water resources have cost ratepayers some $100 million [3] since 2004.</div><div>
</div><div>In 1995, a court ordered pumping of the area's primary water source, the Carmel River, to be cut back by 70 percent by 2017. With the deadline looming, Cal Am has failed to secure another source of water. "Cal Am has shown either poor planning, poor management, poor judgment, poor decision-making, or all of the above," says Public Water Now's website. Even though it has failed in its major responsibility to the Monterey Peninsula, the firm has raked in a steady rate of profit from peninsula residents -- 30 cents on the dollar [4] in pretax profits for 2012.</div><div>
</div><div>After abandoning two prior plans for establishing desalination facilities, Cal Am has a new proposal for another "desal" plant. The project would depend on a ratepayer surcharge and a public bond offering. This would pass nearly all risks on to ratepayers say critics, but at the end of the day ratepayers would have no ownership stake in the asset.</div><div>
</div><div>Some peninsula residents are saying enough. They want public control of the public's scarce water resources.</div><div>
</div><div>When it Comes to Precious Water, Is it Better to Be a Renter or an Owner?</div><div>In the United States, 86 percent of Americans receive their water services from a publicly owned and operated utility. But for-profit firms have made inroads in recent decades and see public water as a new profit center. In 2011, Citigroup economist Willem Buiter predicted that "water as an asset class will, in my view, become eventually the single most important physical-commodity based asset class, dwarfing oil, copper, agricultural commodities and precious metals."</div><div>
</div><div>"Any solution to the Monterey Peninsula's serious water problem demands long term planning, long term investment and a consistent public planning process unfettered by short term demands for shareholder profitability. Public ownership and public control would make the whole process easier and remove conflicts of interest," Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of the non-profit watchdog group Food & Water Watch, told CMD.</div><div>
</div><div>Cal Am is "so strongly driven by pure profit that they will simply ignore more economical options," says Ron Cohen. Cohen, a successful software executive, founded the nonprofit advocacy organization Public Water Now [5]. The group studied the situation and drafted an initiative for voters that would require the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District to pursue a public purchase of Cal Am's local assets.</div><div>
</div><div>"You just have to ask yourself," Cohen said [6], "do you want to be a renter for the rest of your life, and for generations to come, or do you want to be an owner?"</div><div>
</div><div>The initiative reads [7]: "The voters of the District assert that the District should, as soon as practicable and to the extent permitted by law, pursue the acquisition of Cal Am's water system assets and infrastructure in order to deliver maximum value to ratepayers in perpetuity. Such public ownership of the water system not only will remove Cal Am's current for-profit, investor-driven bias, but will also eliminate the excessive fees, costly procedures, and burdensome jurisdictional control of the CPUC over water service on the Monterey Peninsula."</div><div>
</div><div>The issue will be put to the voters on the June 2014 ballot.</div><div>
</div><div>Cal Am Prepping for Battle</div><div>But it won't be smooth sailing for proponents of public water. Cal Am has made a lot of money on the peninsula and is not likely to go down without a fight. It successfully beat back a previous referendum on public water.</div><div>
</div><div>In November 2005, groups mobilized behind "Measure W," a question on the ballot that would have simply authorized a study to assess the process for a community buy-out of the water utility. To defeat the measure, Cal Am hired BNA Communication, which used direct mail, field communications, and television, radio, and newspaper advertisements to fight back. Measure W was defeated [8] with 62 percent voting no. A judge later allowed Cal Am to pass the costs of its "public outreach" -- $1,353,831 -- onto its customers through new surcharges.</div><div>
</div><div>This time around, it will be different, says Cohen. First, while the previous initiative authorized only an expensive study, "the new initiative maps a direct line from passage to acquisition," says Cohen. Second, Public Water Now conducted a poll showing that two-thirds of residents were inclined to support the initiative. The group has teams geared up to go door-to-door to make the case for public control, and they are already past the halfway point on signature collection. But the biggest difference between 2005 and today is that "we have had eight more years of Cal Am and they have failed on two more occasions to solve the peninsula's water problems," says Cohen.</div><div>
</div><div>Scare tactics will be the company's preferred rebuttal. Cal Am representative Catherine Bowie told the local news [9] that any public takeover will result in an eminent domain proceeding because Cal Am's assets are "not for sale." She warned that any eminent domain proceeding would be lengthy, contentious, and costly.</div><div>
</div><div>Eminent domain is a legal tool used by governments to purchase private property for a public purpose, such as for the construction of power lines. If homeowners don't want to sell, the government can still legally secure the property as long as it pays "fair market value."</div><div>
</div><div>But the threat does not bother Cohen. He points to Felton, California. In 2001, Cal Am purchased Felton's water system and a year later proposed a 74 percent rate hike. In response, residents formed an action group and petitioned Santa Cruz County to establish a public agency to exercise control over the water system. In July 2005, Felton residents voted 3-to-1 in favor of issuing $11 million in bonds and raising taxes in order to buy their water system back. The water district offered Cal Am $7.6 million, its appraised value, but the company refused, demanding $25 million. A week before the eminent domain proceeding was set to begin, however, the company settled the case for $10.5 million [10].</div><div>
</div><div>Since then, the community has steadily invested in the water system, and homeowners have saved about 30 percent [11] on their water bills, says Food & Water Watch.</div><div>
</div><div>Trend Towards Public Ownership or "Municipalization"</div><div>In case you think the Monterey struggle is quixotic, you should know there is a bit of a trend in successful public takeovers or "municipalizations."</div><div>
</div><div>Ron Cohen explains that most of these municipalizations have to do with three issues: local control, better customer service, and better prices:</div><div>
</div><div>In 2007, the city of O'Fallon, Missouri was considering selling its public water system to American Water, but delayed after public protest. In 2009, after more than two decades of contracting with private companies to run the system, the city opted for complete public provision of water. It saved 15 percent by operating the systems with public workers instead of private contractors.</div><div>In 2008, citizens in the town of Cave Creek, Arizona took control of their water system, which had always been privately owned and operated.</div><div>In 2001, Montara, California residents voted four-to-one in favor of a public takeover of the water system. At first, Cal Am refused to sell, but the California Public Utilities Commission and Montara Water & Sanitary jointly purchased the system in August 2003.</div><div>But there is a fourth reason as well. When Public Water Now polled peninsula residents on how they felt about a public takeover, "their number one reason was to keep the money in the local community. In the next 10 years, $300 million will be sucked off the peninsula and sent to New Jersey never to be recovered," contends Cohen.</div><div>
</div><div>With a public water system, any revenues raised are not forked over to distant shareholders, but are reinvested into the public system for the long term. And any desalination facility that is built will be owned and controlled by the members of the community themselves.</div><div>
</div><div>For the first time on the Monterey Peninsula, citizens will be owners and not renters.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>See more stories tagged with:</div><div>water [12],</div><div>water privatization [13]</div><div>Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/water/fight-take-public-assets-back-private-control-may-be-winning-california</div><div>Links:</div><div>[1] http://www.prwatch.org/</div><div>[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/mary-bottari</div><div>[3] https://www.publicwaternow.org/public-vs-private/cal-am-stewardship/</div><div>[4] http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/9/91/AL_976-A--Monterey_2013_Step_Rate_Increase--Filed_with_the_CPUC.pdf</div><div>[5] https://www.publicwaternow.org/</div><div>[6] http://www.montereyherald.com/news/ci_24096870/public-water-nows-ron-cohen-brings-focus-cal</div><div>[7] https://www.publicwaternow.org/the-ballot-initiative/</div><div>[8] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Water_Works_Company</div><div>[9] http://www.ksbw.com/news/central-california/monterey/Continuing-controversy-about-peninsula-water/-/5738820/21398088/-/rvl5iez/-/index.html</div><div>[10] http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/case/felton-water-system</div><div>[11] http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Felton_FS-2013-10.pdf</div><div>[12] http://www.alternet.org/tags/water-0</div><div>[13] http://www.alternet.org/tags/water-privatization</div><div>[14] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/environmental-fracking-bill_n_3916763.html?view=print&comm_ref=false Environmental Groups Bail On California Fracking Bill] 9/13.</div><div>=</div><div>On Thursday, August 29th, Dorothy Reik, a MoveOn.org member from Topanga, to delivered over 70,000 petition signatures from from MoveOn, CREDO, and Friends of the Earth to State Assemblyman Mike Gatto’s (CA-43) and Assembly Speaker John Pérez’s (CA-53) offices, urging them to add an immediate moratorium on fracking to State Sen. Fran Pavley’s regulatory bill (SB4). The bill originally contained a moratorium on fracking, but it was stripped out in the Senate due to industry pressure. MoveOn member</div><div></div><div>Several lawsuits have been filed over global warming. For example, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency before the Supreme Court of the United States forced the US government to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A similar approach was taken by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer who filed a lawsuit California v. General Motors Corp. to force car manufacturers to reduce vehicles' emissions of carbon dioxide. A third case, Comer v. Murphy Oil, was filed by Gerald Maples, a trial attorney in Mississippi, in an effort to force fossil fuel and chemical companies to pay for damages caused by global warming.[35]</div><div>=</div><div>Besides Williams, four other major electricity suppliers - including Duke Energy, Dynegy Inc., Mirant Corp. and Reliant Energy Inc. - have been accused of seriously overcharging California for electricity. see davis for eletictiy scam</div><div></div><div>defeats ag-gag</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>http://grist.org/news/california-might-borrow-500-million-from-its-climate-fund/</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>Calif. groups worry over environmental law reform</div><div>Laura Olson/The Associated Press</div><div>Posted:&nbsp; 07/30/2013 02:17:23 AM PDT | Updated:&nbsp; &nbsp;7 days ago</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>SACRAMENTO -- A coalition of business, housing and local government leaders is warning California legislative leaders that a plan to rewrite the state's landmark environmental law could lead to more lawsuits and make it harder to approve responsible projects -- the opposite of what lawmakers hope to achieve with the overhaul.</div><div>
</div><div>The group outlined its concerns to Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, in a letter obtained by The Associated Press. The group includes powerful organizations such as the California Chamber of Commerce, the Southern California Association of Governments, and the California Association of Realtors.</div><div>
</div><div>The coalition is among many environmental, business and labor groups that have been privately working with the Democratic Senate leader to reform the four-decade-old California Environmental Quality Act. Critics say the law, which was intended to protect the state's air and water, has been abused to block projects and gain costly concessions from developers.</div><div>
</div><div>Steinberg's legislation, SB731, aims to cut the number of lawsuits and the resulting delays in construction that can drag on for years when opponents object to a project.</div><div>
</div><div>It would create statewide standards for noise and traffic issues involving urban development projects, allowing projects that meet those standards to be protected from lawsuits based on those issues. A project's aesthetics also could not be used as grounds for suing under the environmental law.</div><div>
</div><div>The bill also seeks to speed up administrative procedures stemming from lawsuits and directs the attorney general to track court filings related to the environmental statute.</div><div>
</div><div>In the letter sent to Steinberg on Thursday, the CEQA Working Group wrote that the measure as drafted would create new requirements that will lead to meritless lawsuits against projects that otherwise comply with stringent state and local environmental laws.</div><div>
</div><div>”Unfortunately, as drafted, SB731 would not advance true CEQA reform and, in fact, could make approval of worthy and responsible projects even more difficult,” the leaders of several dozen groups wrote.</div><div>
</div><div>Mark Hedlund, a spokesman for Steinberg, said Monday that he could not immediately comment on the concerns outlined in the letter. He said the Senate leader is continuing to work with interest groups to address concerns and craft a final version of the bill.</div><div>
</div><div>”The pro tem is still optimistic that we'll be able get this done this year,” he said.</div><div>
</div><div>Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, has supported changing the environmental law, though he has expressed doubts about whether the reforms could be completed this year. Many environmental groups and labor unions strongly support the existing law and argue that the tough rules are necessary to safeguard the state's natural resources.</div><div>
</div><div>Gary Toebben, president and CEO of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, said he appreciated Steinberg's efforts to find consensus but insisted the current version of the legislation was not acceptable.</div><div>
</div><div>The proposal “does not make the improvements that we were looking for and in some cases makes CEQA even more likely to be abused,” said Toebben, who serves as co-chairman of the CEQA Working Group.</div><div>
</div><div>Among the group's concerns are provisions to create statewide standards for noise levels and handling parking issues. The group says it is impractical to address those issues on a statewide basis and could discourage development.</div><div>
</div><div>It also is concerned an optional procedure intended to speed up the legal process would actually encourage lawsuits by putting the significant cost of preparing the case record on agencies or developers, giving potential plaintiffs little to lose in filing suit.</div><div>
</div><div>Other sections of the proposed overhaul provide little or no benefits over current rules, according to the coalition.</div><div>
</div><div>The group says it would like further changes that would prevent lawsuits and delays for renewable energy projects and those that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Steinberg has said he also aims to streamline approval for such projects.</div><div>
</div><div>The letter also calls for disclosure of any parties that help pay for a lawsuit filed under the environmental quality law.</div><div>
</div><div>Steinberg's legislation passed the Senate in May. It is before the Assembly Local Government Committee, where it could be taken up when lawmakers return to session next month.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>older:</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Significant CEQA Streamlining Reform Bills Enacted</div><div>Courtesy of Meyers / Nave</div><div>Read the original article here.</div><div>This is a little bit dated but some of these new regulations and interpretations will take effect on January 1, 2012.</div><div>October 24, 2011</div><div>Three important reform bills designed to streamline California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) processing and review for certain classes of projects have been enacted and will take effect January 1, 2012.&nbsp; SB 226 creates a new exemption for urban infill and renewable energy projects.&nbsp; It also makes a variety of amendments to both CEQA and SB 375, the landmark 2008 legislation designed to integrate California’s land use, transportation and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction policies.&nbsp; &nbsp;AB 900 shortens the Court review for CEQA challenges to certified “leadership projects” by authorizing lawsuits to be brought directly in the Court of Appeal on an expedited schedule.&nbsp; “Leadership projects” must be certified LEED silver or higher, be carbon neutral, create “high-wage, highly skilled” jobs, and result in an investment of at least $100 million in California’s economy (among other requirements).&nbsp; SB 292 is a narrow bill designed to accommodate a new sports stadium and convention center in downtown Los Angeles by&nbsp; streamlining judicial review in exchange for reductions in GHG emissions and traffic impacts.</div><div>
</div><div>At the outset, it is important to note that these three new CEQA bills were rushed through at the very end of a legislative session and were not subjected to legislative staff review.&nbsp; Each bears some technical flaws and inconsistencies which may create difficulties for agencies applying these new provisions.&nbsp; Clean up legislation in the future may be warranted.&nbsp; As a result, we encourage public agencies and developers to consult with legal counsel before relying on the new legislation, especially the exemption for urban infill projects.</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>The first step to Banning Fracking in California, has been approved in Sacramento! There is a lot more work to be done though. The Natural Resources Committee voted 5-3 to temporarily halt fracking till further health assessments can be done. The moratorium bills passed including&nbsp; Santa Monica Assemblyman Richard Bloom's Bill 1301. Which would stop fracking until further legislation is enacted outlining how it can occur safely. We know it cannot be proven safe.</div><div>
</div><div>Two similar bills; AB 1323 by Holly Mitchell, and AB649 by Adrin Nazarian, call for creating an advisory committee to review health, environmental, economic and other effects. They would recommend regulatory changes. They both deserve praise. Now the studies need to be conducted and data collected. That ball has already started rolling.</div><div>
</div><div>Those bills from Holly Mitchell of Baldwin Hills and Culver City, and Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian, of Sherman Oaks, would require state officials to decide by January 2019 if fracking should occur in California.</div><div>
</div><div>It is still an uphill climb! California was the 3rd largest producer of oil and gas last year, and those natural resources were also the biggest export for the US in 2011! It is very frustrating that our neighborhoods and agricultural farms, and groundwater are getting poisoned,&nbsp; while we are getting gauged at the pump so people overseas can drive cars for $9 per gallon and up!</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>http://grist.org/news/los-angeles-to-ditch-coal-by-2025/</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>2010 Midterm Election Spending</div><div>American Crossroads aired 17,360 pro-Republican ads in the three-month period between August 1 and October 1 2010, primarily on Senate races.[17] In the final weeks of the election, American Crossroads is part of an alliance of Republican groups planning on spending $50 million on a "House Surge Strategy" to help Republicans in House races. The strategy is carried out in coordination with the American Action Network and the Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity; American Crossroads is expected to spend $10 million on the effort.[1]</div><div>
</div><div>As of October 2010, American Crossroads has spent money on Senate races in California, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. They anticipate beginning to influence House races, as well. [18]</div><div>
</div><div>American Crossroads has been conspicuously absent in major races in Wisconsin, Washington, and Florida. This is likely due to their coordinated efforts with the American Action Network, another right wing action group with similar purposes, and with whom they share office space (see "Coordination With Other Conservative Groups," below).</div><div>
</div><div>According to the Huffington Post, American Crossroads had already raised over $30 million as of April 2010.[2] [19] One of the primary targets was Senate Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), in an effort to reprise their partisan success in 2004 in targeting Tom Daschle (D-SD), who led Democrats when they controlled the Senate during President George W. Bush's first term as president.</div><div>
</div><div>During the 2010 election, most of American Crossroads' funding was filtered anonymously through the 501(c)(4) Crossroads GPS. As of September 20, 2010, American Crossroads reported that it had raised a total of $32 million (and was well on the way to meeting its $50 million dollar goal); however, of that amount, only $9.3 million was donated directly to American Crossroads' 527 wing. [14] Based on this report, it is fair to say that Crossroads GPS is not merely a "wing" of American Crossroads; it is American Crossroads.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>McJobs</div><div>"There's good reason such service-sector positions are called 'McJobs'," wrote Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser.</div><div>
</div><div>His Los Angeles Times piece described California State Proposition 72 as:</div><div>
</div><div>"an initiative that would require large and medium-sized business owners to give health benefits to their workers. ... The fast-food industry is the nation's largest employer of minimum-wage labor. ... Led by McDonald's, the industry has pioneered a workforce that earns low wages, gets little training, receives few benefits and has one of the highest turnover rates of any trade."</div><div>Other opponents of Proposition 72 included Burger King, Wendy's, Walgreen, Best Buy, Target, Sears, YUM! Brands, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Restaurant Association. The state legislature had already passed a bill in 2003, signed into law by then-Governor Gray Davis, that required larger businesses to offer health care benefits. But fast-food companies, big box retail chains and their allies spent millions of dollars to rescind the law through the initiative process. In their campaign to defeat the initiative, the same groups ran television ads relying on "scare tactics, distortions and ... fundamental misrepresentation(s) of Proposition 72." [4] Proposition 72 failed.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>Celeste Greig, California Republican, Claims Pregnancy From Rape Is Rare</div><div>---</div><div>
</div><div>lcv top scores Eight House members had perfect scores: Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Woolsey (D-Calif.), Stark (D-Calif.), Honda (D-Calif.), Capps (D-Calif.), Polis (D-Col.), Quigley (D-Ill.), Markey (D-Mass.).</div><div>
</div><div>---</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>California has been a hotbed of both legal and illegal activity in the name of animal rights lately.</div><div>The largest beef recall in history began here, after an undercover investigation by an animal welfare group. Meanwhile, California universities have been the site of a protracted battle between animal experimenters and underground activists using threats and property destruction. And last week, the secretary of state announced that a proposal to eliminate some of the cruelest confinements in animal agriculture will go before voters in November.</div><div>
</div><div>These are disparate tactics, yet they all threaten animal businesses.</div><div>
</div><div>Enter Gene Mullin, a member of the California State Assembly and a Democrat, who has introduced AB 2296, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, to stifle the First Amendment rights of animal advocates. The law would prohibit the posting of publicly available information on activist websites, restrict access to public meetings, and require heavy-handed penalties for non-violent civil disobedience.</div><div>
</div><div>All in the name of fighting “terrorism.”</div><div>
</div><div>Background</div><div>
</div><div>In November, 2006, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a sweeping, overly broad law that was, ostensibly, introduced to target underground activists like the Animal Liberation Front. It was pushed through Congress, with little discussion or debate, by a coalition of corporations and industry groups including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Pfizer and the Fur Commission. It wraps up a range of activity—from non-violent civil disobedience to property destruction—as “terrorism” if it targets an “animal enterprise,” and, most dangerous of all, it has made many activists fearful of continuing their work because they could be labeled a “terrorist.”</div><div>
</div><div>The government has used the passage of the AETA to cozy up with these “animal enterprises” even more. In March, 2007, Ricardo Solano Jr., a lead attorney in the “animal enterprise terrorism” case of the SHAC 7, gave a keynote speech at the Animal Agriculture Alliance’s Stakeholders Summit. According to Dairy Herd Management Magazine, he told the executives present: “The fact of the matter is that there are extremist individuals and groups that will go through great lengths to put you out of business. The recent passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act sends a clear signal to animal-rights extremists that if their activities cross the line, the federal government will not stand idly by.”</div><div>
</div><div>Nevertheless, the new law hasn’t been used. You might remember that, after the passage of the federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act in 1992, corporations immediately began pushing for more legislation, and more power. They got what they wanted with the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. But now that victory is simply being used as a political springboard for even more legislation, providing even more power.</div><div>
</div><div>Key provisions in the California bill:</div><div>
</div><div>Prohibits the publication of publicly-available information</div><div>
</div><div>The most significant section of the bill says that “no person, business, or association shall knowingly publicly post or publicly display on the Internet a home address, home telephone number, or image of any employee of an animal enterprise or other individuals residing at the same home address of the employee of an animal enterprise” if the posting is intended to do one of a few things.</div><div>
</div><div>It must either be intended to:</div><div>
</div><div>“Incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm to the person identified in the posting or display, or to a coresident of that person, where the third person is likely to commit this harm.”</div><div>
</div><div>Or</div><div>
</div><div>“Threaten the person identified in the posting or display, or a coresident of that person, in a manner that places the person identified or the coresident in objectively reasonable fear for his or her personal safety.”</div><div>
</div><div>Here, lawmakers are trying to push the limits of what a long history of First Amendment law has established. They’re singling out a group of people solely based on their political beliefs, and restricting their speech because of those beliefs. If someone posted information about an executive at Wal-Mart, because of a labor dispute, that wouldn’t be prohibited. Or, perhaps a better comparison would be someone who posts information about an abortion doctor (a situation which, unlike animal rights campaigns, has led to murder).</div><div>
</div><div>Beyond that, though, these clauses are so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Or, in the hands of an ambitious prosecutor, so ambiguous as to be quite dangerous.</div><div>
</div><div>The biggest problem here is the use of amorphous term “reasonable fear.” The word “eco-terrorism” is batted around recklessly by industry groups, in a scare-mongering campaign that has included full-page ads in major newspapers and even stooping so low as to call a children’s movie “soft-core eco-terrorism for kids.” They are doing everything they can to create this fear through scare mongering: that’s the point. In light of this political climate, it’s impossible to discuss “reasonable fear,” because industry groups are throwing all their weight into making the unreasonable seem reasonable—into making the public afraid of non-violent activists, so they can push a political agenda.</div><div>
</div><div>Furthermore, lawmakers are twisting and redefining the idea of “incitement.” Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) established that incitement is more than mere advocacy, and it is more than simply providing information: it must tend to cause “imminent lawless action.” That’s a bit of a stretch with the Internet, unless someone were to post the information and then send a fiery email to someone saying, “Go do something illegal!” The reality, though, is that this hasn’t happened. Lawmakers are targeted websites for merely posting publicly available information in a political context.</div><div>
</div><div>Restricts access to public meetings</div><div>
</div><div>The bill “imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies” on the grounds that, among other points, some researchers have been the targets of property destruction and threats.</div><div>
</div><div>The bill also notes, as a justification for this restriction, that “The information used to target the victims of these crimes often is obtained by making a request for public records from a government agency.” It’s quite curious that lawmakers can make such a bold statement about the methods of underground activists responsible for the illegal actions in California, considering they have not been caught.</div><div>
</div><div>Catching the underground activists, though, is only part of the intention. More importantly, researchers and corporations could use this fear mongering to restrict publicly available information that is used by a wide variety of legal, mainstream groups in their campaigns.</div><div>
</div><div>Creates new crimes and disproportionate penalties</div><div>
</div><div>The bill spells out civil remedies for individuals whose public information is posted publicly, including suing for “damages to that individual in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages, but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000).”</div><div>
</div><div>Lawmakers also went to great lengths to spin standard court procedures into fear-mongering tactics. For instance, the bill spells out that courts “shall take all action reasonably required” to protect animal enterprise employees, including restraining orders and bans on photography. And in court, employees may use a pseudonym out of fear of animal rights advocates. These are all tools available to the court in extreme situations, but lawmakers have gone out of their way to emphasize them here seemingly to enforce the “terrorist threat” posed by activists.</div><div>
</div><div>Perhaps most disturbing, though, are the disproportionate penalties.</div><div>
</div><div>One of the slaughterhouse workers in Chino, Calif., whose abuse of cows led to the beef recall, pleaded guilty recently to three misdemeanors. Undercover video showed Rafael Sanchez Herrera and others trying to force sick cows into the kill chutes by stabbing a cow in the eye with a stick, dragging sick cows with forklifts and shooting high-pressure hoses into their mouths. He was sentenced to 180 days in jail and a $100 fine.</div><div>
</div><div>Under this legislation, someone who uses non-violent civil disobedience outside of a slaughterhouse in protest of these abusive practices could receive the same amount of jail time, and a $5,000 fine.</div><div>
</div><div>Tagged as: Animal Enterprise Protection Act, State Terrorism Laws</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/04/14/495728/-California-Considering-Censoring-Political-Bloggers#</div><div>
</div><div>draft: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/wp-content/Images/ca_aepa_draft.pdf</div><div>
</div><div>UC favors? http://www.calstate.edu/air/legislative_report/2008/07.03/story3.html</div><div>
</div><div>------</div><div>AB 685 (Eng) - Will establish a right to water for basic human needs as a policy of the state of California. This currently proposed Bill, states that every human being has the right to clean drinking water. As you know, Fracking irreversibly pollutes drinking water. Here is a link about AB 685. Here is a link to sign a petition to Governor Brown asking him to pass this Bill, and to make it into a legislative Act.</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>2012 "Ag Approps" Gives Props to the "Big 6"</div><div>This regulatory victory was not good enough for industry, however. Quietly, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) wrote a gift to biotech companies into the 2013 agriculture appropriations ("Ag Approps") bill. Opponents of GMOs refer to this as the "Monsanto Protection Act." Beneficiaries of Kingston's "rider" to the bill (Section 733) -- such as Monsanto, which lobbied for it in the second quarter of 2012 -- refer to it as the "farmer assurance provision."</div><div>
</div><div>If the Ag Approps bill passes as written, if a court removes a GMO from the market after the USDA has deregulated it, the USDA will be required to grant a permit to plant that crop to any farmer who requests one, even if that crop's safety is in question or under review.</div><div>
</div><div>Buried Biotech Treasure in the 2012 Farm Bill</div><div>At the same time, another far-reaching provision favoring the biotech industry is in the works. Buried in the House version of the 2012 Farm Bill, sponsored by House Agriculture Committee chair Frank Lucas (R-OK), is an enormous gift to the biotech industry. The bill changes the Plant Protection Act (PPA) to limit the time and scope of future environmental assessments of GE crops.</div><div>
</div><div>The House farm bill as changed by Congressman Lucas alters the legal rules to cut corners on the environmental review by requiring only the more limited EA and by requiring the USDA to complete that review in a maximum period of a year and a half -- or else the GE crop is automatically approved. It also restricts the scope of that limited environmental review and forbids the spending of any money on any broader environmental analysis of the effect of the GMO.</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>In California, the battle over Proposition 37, which would require the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food products, is heating up. In late July, pro-labeling groups obtained a flier sent out by a group opposed to the proposition containing the endorsements of three Democratic California Assemblymembers, even though the Democratic Party of California (and over 90 percent of consumers) supports GMO labeling.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>The group that ran the flier is "No on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme, Sponsored by Farmers and Food Producers," formerly known as "Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition." "No on 37" receives major funding from the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) and Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), both front groups for the "Big 6" pesticide and genetic engineering companies: Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Syngenta, Bayer, Dupont, and BASF. The flier proudly bears the endorsements of Assemblymembers Henry Perea, Manuel Perez, and Alexandra Rooker, the Vice-Chair of the California Democratic Party. This despite the California Democratic Party announcing its endorsement for Prop 37 on Monday.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>Big Food puts its back into fighting GMO labeling in California</div><div>By Michele Simon</div><div>
</div><div>http://grist.org/food/big-food-puts-its-back-into-fighting-gmo-labeling-in-california/</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>In case you had any doubt that California’s Prop 37 — which would require labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) — poses a significant threat to the food industry, a top food lobby has now made it perfectly clear that it does.</div><div>
</div><div>In a recent speech to the American Soybean Association (most soy grown in the U.S. is GMO), Pamela Bailey, president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), said that defeating the initiative “is the single highest priority for GMA this year.”</div><div>
</div><div>You may not know the GMA, but its members represent the nation’s largest food producers — those with the most at stake in the battle over GMO labeling. Soft drink and snack giant PepsiCo, cereal makers Kellogg and General Mills, and of course, biotech behemoth Monsanto all belong to the GMA.</div><div>
</div><div>According to state filing reports, GMA has already spent $375,000 on its efforts to oppose the labeling measure, with its members adding additional out-of-state lobbying power in the tens of thousands of dollars.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Big Food: “Lobbying is us”</div><div>
</div><div>This is hardly the first time the nation’s most powerful trade association of food manufacturers has marshaled its resources to oppose food and nutrition policy — at both the national and state levels.</div><div>
</div><div>For years GMA flexed its lobbying muscle in state legislatures all over the country fighting bills that were simply trying to remove junk food and soda from school vending machines.</div><div>
</div><div>Big Food lobbyists have also banded together to vociferously fight any attempt to restrict junk food marketing to children. For example, in 2005, GMA was a founding member of the Alliance for American Advertising, whose stated purpose was to defend the food industry’s alleged First Amendment right to advertise to children and to promote voluntary self-regulation as an alternative to government action.</div><div>
</div><div>More recently, GMA was among leading trade groups and corporations opposing the federal government’s attempt to improve industry’s own voluntary guidelines for food marketing to children. As this Reuters special report from April explains, GMA’s chief lobbyist visited the White House last July along with several top food industry representatives (from companies including Nestle, Kellogg, and General Mills) to scuttle an effort by four federal agencies that would have protected children from predatory junk food marketing.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Big Food loves labels</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>It seems ironic that the same companies taking advantage of every inch of packaging space to convince shoppers to purchase their products would object so strongly to labeling for something they claim is not harmful.</div><div>
</div><div>In recent years, the federal government has gone so far as to recognize that food companies’ so-called “front of package” labeling is out of control. Federal agencies have commissioned not one but two Institute of Medicine reports in search of solutions to the problem.</div><div>
</div><div>Unwilling to tolerate government intervention, the GMA has been aggressively promoting its own new nutrition-labeling scheme called “Facts Up Front.” But as Food Politics author and nutrition professor Marion Nestle has explained, this is an obvious end-run around the feds. Here’s how the food industry describes its own voluntary program:</div><div>
</div><div>“Facts Up Front” is a nutrient-based labeling system that summarizes important information from the Nutrition Facts Panel in a simple and easy-to-use format on the front of food and beverage packages.</div><div>Translation: We are repeating information already required on the back of the package, but placing it in a format we like better on the front.</div><div>
</div><div>See how that works? The food industry is always in charge.</div><div>
</div><div>So polls indicating that a whopping 90 percent of Californians want GMOs labeled, and the fact that 40 other nations (including the European Union, Brazil, and China) already require food makers to disclose GMOs, have GMA shaking in its boots.</div><div>
</div><div>In her recent speech, GMA President Bailey warned her audience: “If California wins, you need to be worried the campaign will come to your state.”</div><div>
</div><div>She’s right. In fact, they should be very worried.</div><div>
</div><div>Michele Simon is a public health lawyer specializing in industry marketing and lobbying tactics. She is the author of Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back. She is grateful to live in Oakland, Calif., within walking distance of a farmers market. You can follow her on Twitter.</div><div>---</div><div>
</div><div>http://grist.org/food/big-food-puts-its-back-into-fighting-gmo-labeling-in-california/</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>special exemption for superpacs?&nbsp; http://www.stopspecialexemptions.org/updates/crystalball</div><div>
</div><div>-----</div><div>
</div><div>Could Attorney General Kamala Harris Turn the Tide on Dark Money?</div><div>Lee Fang on November 5, 2012 - 10:50 PM ET</div><div>A major misstep by a conservative nonprofit has led to a dramatic turn of events in the Golden State. In what was first a case of a mysterious Arizona group laundering political money for two key ballot initiatives in California, the scandal may quickly evolve into a criminal investigation that could rock the foundations of Capitol Hill by unmasking the most prominent dark money slush fund in the country.</div><div>
</div><div>It’s all up to Kamala Harris, California’s attorney general, who was elected two years ago on a platform of getting tough on white-collar crime. Her office told reporters today that she is laying out the options for either a criminal or civil investigation into this major secret money group.</div><div>
</div><div>First, some background:</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>• On October 15, a mysterious nonprofit in Arizona called Americans for Responsible Leadership cut a stunning $11 million donation to a committee in California dedicated to defeating Prop 30 (a ballot initiative to raise taxes to fund the budget) and passing Prop 32 (an anti-union effort to ban payroll deductions), but didn’t disclose where that money came from. The move violated a brand new rule in California mandating that even 501(c) nonprofits disclose the source of their donations.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>• Three days later, on October 18, Common Cause, a government watchdog, filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission asking for an inquiry. The commission, a state campaign finance regulator that puts the Federal Election Commission to shame with its aggressive pursuit of the public interest, took up the case and on October 25, advised Americans for Responsible Leadership that it had 25 hours to comply with a request for information about the source of that $11 million check.</div><div>
</div><div>• Americans for Responsible Leadership hired Holtzman Vogel, a DC-area law firm retained for years by Karl Rove and other Republican leaders, to try to quash the FPPC’s requests, claiming at one point to a local judge that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision protected the group from having to disclose its donors. As the Sacramento judge accurately observed, the Citizens United decision did no such thing.</div><div>
</div><div>• In a surprise last week, an appellate judge, without comment, agreed with the Arizona group in preventing the FPPC from action. This forced a late minute appeal that led to an emergency decision by the California Supreme Court, which ruled 7-0 on Sunday to force disclosure.</div><div>
</div><div>And that brings us to the revelation this morning that Americans for Responsible Leadership received the $11 million from Americans for Job Security, a trade association based in Virginia. Americans for Job Security, founded by two Republican operatives who now handle media-buys for Karl Rove’s American Crossroads Super PAC, is just another coin-operated front group. In the past, corporations have given it large sums in exchange for negative advertising in campaigns and lobbying efforts.</div><div>
</div><div>In the letter to regulators, Americans for Responsible Leadership conceded that Americans for Job Security in turn received the $11 million from yet another nonprofit, this one called Center to Protect Patients’ Rights.</div><div>
</div><div>The FPPC’s chair, Ann Ravel, says the trail of dummy nonprofits is a clear sign that the Arizona nonprofit behind the $11 million donation was engaged in “campaign money laundering.” It’s obvious to anyone that Americans for Responsible Leadership is still playing shell games. The two nonprofits it disclosed do not give any real information about the individuals or corporations that provided the money for the $11 million check.</div><div>
</div><div>Here’s why this now gets very interesting.</div><div>
</div><div>As I reported exclusively in May, the Center to Protect Patients’ Rights—the group that is, at this point, the closest thing we know about the origin of the $11 million in California—is the hub for billionaire donors to funnel cash to attack ad campaigns across the country. Sean Noble, the president of the group, is a key deputy to the Koch brothers’ political machine. He helps run weekly meetings with other Republican Super PACs to coordinate spending. As head of the Center to Protect Patients’ Rights, he doles out checks to various nonprofits that in turn use that money to pummel Democrats with negative advertising.</div><div>
</div><div>Noble’s strategy centers on brand marketing. To appeal to Catholic voters, his group will cut a check to a right-wing religious nonprofit, like the Susan B. Anthony List, to run ads accusing Democrats of supporting abortion. To make an appeal to elderly voters, the Center finances a nonprofit called the 60 Plus Association to run ads accusing Democrats of cutting Medicare. The list goes on, from organizations dedicated to scare tactics against Muslim Americans to Tea Party groups, Noble has channeled billionaire cash to a stunning array of different fronts that then air nasty negative ads during elections. The public only sees the brand at the end of the commercial, but never the true source of the money. Quirks in nonprofit law allow even the most modest forms of disclosure—the transfers from one group to the next—to be kept secret until over a year after the election. That’s why we learned about the transfers during the midterm elections only this year.</div><div>
</div><div>Noble’s group completely altered the shape of Congress. During the 2010 election cycle, Noble’ group funneled some $55 million, which in conjunction with the US Chamber of Commerce’s $75 million, lifted House Republicans into the majority, radically shifting the balance of power in Washington, DC. This year, it’s pretty clear that shadow money groups active in federal elections across the country are again depending on this pool of untraceable money.</div><div>
</div><div>The right-wing billionaire clique, rumored to be the same group of tycoons who attend the posh Koch strategy conferences, is obessed with secrecy. They were quick to kick me out of one of their confabs earlier this year, and have used every legal instrument available to prevent their names from being revealed. Accordingly, Center for Protecting Patients’ Rights pushes the limits of campaign finance law, but rarely violates it.</div><div>
</div><div>Even in California, a nonprofit can avoid disclosure laws by claiming to only support issue advocacy.</div><div>
</div><div>That’s where the operatives messed up. The $11 million they financed in California went to an explicit campaign committee, voiding any argument that the donation was in pursuit of an “issue” rather than a political campaign. There’s no grey area here; the money was part of a campaign donation, and its true donors, meaning the people behind the Center to Protect Patients’ Rights, must be disclosed.</div><div>
</div><div>Kamala Harris seems determined to pursue a criminal investigation. But will she?</div><div>
</div><div>The growing scandal resembles another eleventh-hour Koch campaign effort. In 1996, a resurgent Clinton administration came close to helping Democrats retake the House of Representatives. In the closing days of the 1996 election, a nonprofit group called Triad Management helped two other nonprofits air $3 million in television ads in twenty-six House races and three Senate races. The money saved Speaker Newt Gingrich’s majority.</div><div>
</div><div>A subsequent investigation found that more than half of the Triad money came from an organization funded by David and Charles Koch, and that the money was spent disproportionately in areas where Koch Industries owned refineries and pipelines. The investigation also found that Koch Industries provided direct corporate money for the ads, an apparent violation of campaign finance law at the time.</div><div>
</div><div>At the time of the Senate investigation, Koch Industries had been building up its lobbying muscle to combat charges relating to over 300 oil spills caused by the corporation in the mid nineties.</div><div>
</div><div>Just as The Wall Street Journal reported on many Triad-related documents, Koch received help from its allies in DC. In October of 1997, Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)—then, the chair of the Senate Government Affairs Committee—moved to cancel hearings into the investigation.</div><div>
</div><div>Today, the dynamics are different, but the core issue is the same. A Koch-group was caught violating the law, and there’s a chance to uncover the truth about one of the biggest secret money efforts in American history. It’s likely that Koch and these billionaires will do anything it takes to prevent this current scandal from growing.</div><div>
</div><div>Attorney General Harris will decide whether or not to pursue an investigation into the $11 million donation. The result of the effort may reveal who really purchased Congress for the last two years, and the next two.</div><div>
</div><div>Katrina vanden Heuvel recently made the case against dark money on MSNBC's Up with Chris Hayes. Watch here.</div><div>
</div><div>Related Topics: Campaign Finance | Election 2012 | Politics</div><div>http://www.thenation.com/blog/171055/could-attorney-general-kamala-harris-turn-tide-dark-money</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>june 12 election:</div><div>
</div><div>debate over campaign regulation</div><div>Mercury News Editorial</div><div>
</div><div>Posted:&nbsp; &nbsp;06/05/2012 12:35:49 PM PDT</div><div>
</div><div>Supporters and opponents of campaign finance reform usually agree that sunshine is important. But supporters say disclosure should be the starting point for regulation, while opponents say just reporting donations is enough.</div><div>
</div><div>This debate goes on but court rulings have made most regulation beyond requiring disclosure all but impossible. And a report on campaign donors by the Center for Investigative Reporting's California Watch only illuminates the problem.</div><div>
</div><div>In state elections over the past 11 years, the top 50 individual donors and the top 50 group contributors combined spent $1.25 billion to sway lawmakers and voters, says California Watch. That's about one-third of the political contributions in that</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>time. And more than 80 percent of the cash went to campaigns for ballot measures.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>It's just more evidence that an initiative system designed to curb abuses by elected officials has become a tool of special interests.</div><div>
</div><div>California Watch analyzed contributions through 2011. The California Teachers Association is the biggest donor on the list, spending 85 percent of its money on ballot measures. And of course the tobacco industry is right up there -- no surprise after the Proposition 29 battle this week. California Watch shows Philip Morris as the eighth-largest group contributor and R.J. Reynolds as the 11th.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>That's not to say contributions to elected officials are insignificant. The top 100 contributed $219 million in those 11 years to candidates and political parties -- about 60 percent of it to Democrats, roughly their proportion of representation in the Legislature. Why? Because for many if not most contributors, the goal is not so much to help get somebody elected as it is to buy influence over those who are going to win.</div><div>
</div><div>The take-away from the report: A small number of interest groups including drug companies, tobacco, labor unions, Indian tribes and Pacific Gas & Electric exert huge financial influence on the political process. Similarly, wealthy businessmen -- and they are overwhelmingly men -- are disproportionately shaping public policy.</div><div>
</div><div>But what to do? Public financing of campaigns might work if somebody found a really practical formula, but current ideas are a tough sell for voters. Combine that with the courts shielding corporations and wealthy individuals from contribution restrictions, and it's hard to see how to level the playing field.</div><div>
</div><div>California Watch's report could do some good if voters read it, take it to heart and look carefully at who's supporting what and whom next time around. For now, the report will mostly make donors feel smug and the rest of us mad.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>The Rainmakers: California's top political donors, 2001-2011</div><div>Lavishing their largesse on legislators and political committees alike, the largest donors to California politics spent $1.25 billion from 2001 through 2011. The group – 50 special interests and 50 wealthy individuals – spans the Golden State's social order. They are corporate leaders and venture capitalists, real estate developers and Hollywood scions. They are energy and tobacco companies, labor unions and tribal governments. Collectively, they shelled out a third of all the money given to campaigns in the state during the 11-year period.</div><div>
</div><div>Produced by&nbsp;</div><div>Top 10 individuals</div><div>Top 10 groups</div><div>1<span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>Stephen L. Bing</div><div>Los Angeles, CA</div><div>Screenwriter and movie producer</div><div>56 donations: 23 to candidates, 19 to ballot measures and 14 to parties</div><div>$52,500,782</div><div>2<span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>Andrew Jerrold "Jerry" Perenchio</div><div>Los Angeles, CA</div><div>Univision</div><div>121 donations: 63 to candidates, 19 to ballot measures and 39 to parties</div><div>$16,927,588</div><div>3<span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>Charles T. Munger Jr.</div><div>Palo Alto, CA</div><div>Physicist at Stanford University</div><div>60 donations: 25 to candidates, 25 to ballot measures and 10 to parties</div><div>$14,093,488</div><div>4<span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>L. John Doerr III</div><div>Woodside, CA</div><div>Venture capital</div><div>156 donations: 129 to candidates, 19 to ballot measures and 8 to parties</div><div>$9,296,476</div><div>5<span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>Peter V. Sperling</div><div>Phoenix, AZ</div><div>University of Phoenix</div><div>24 donations: 13 to candidates, 7 to ballot measures and 4 to parties</div><div>$9,155,000</div><div>6<span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>Alex G. Spanos</div><div>Stockton, CA</div><div>Real estate</div><div>83 donations: 58 to candidates, 6 to ballot measures and 19 to parties</div><div>$8,979,476</div><div>7<span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>Reed Hastings</div><div>Santa Cruz, CA</div><div>Netflix</div><div>67 donations: 39 to candidates, 22 to ballot measures and 6 to parties</div><div>$8,506,895</div><div>8<span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>Henry T. Nicholas III</div><div>Newport Coast, CA</div><div>Broadcom semiconductor company</div><div>7 donations: 1 to candidates, 6 to ballot measures and 0 to parties</div><div>$7,501,406</div><div>9<span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>Lawrence K. Dodge</div><div>Monarch Beach, CA</div><div>Business executive, banker</div><div>25 donations: 14 to candidates, 3 to ballot measures and 8 to parties</div><div>$6,834,399</div><div>10<span style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>Thomas Steyer</div><div>San Francisco, CA</div><div>Investment management</div><div>12 donations: 6 to candidates, 5 to ballot measures and 1 to parties</div><div>$6,144,400</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>Officials Eye Cap-and-Trade Revenues for Transit</div><div>
</div><div>In California, some officials are eyeing revenues from the state's cap-and-trade system to get drivers out of their cars. The cap is envisioned as a financial backstop to the state's high-speed rail plan. Gov. Jerry Brown's budget indicates that cap-and-trade could provide up to $1 billion in revenue. Building high-speed rail up and down the Golden State could be just one plan for cap-and-trade monies. Former Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez advocates using revenues to boost clean tech, while State Sen. Kevin de León wants to see at least 10 percent of the revenues be put toward greenhouse gas reduction projects in disadvantaged communities. Some farm groups, meanwhile, are vying for funds to go to supporting agricultural practices that cut greenhouse gases.</div><div>
</div><div>huffpo</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>This week, there were two big clean energy projects announced in California that are remarkable for a couple of reasons. Together, these two projects will power hundreds of thousands of homes with clean, affordable solar energy.</div><div>
</div><div>They will create thousands of good-paying jobs and billions in local economic benefits.</div><div>
</div><div>They also garnered support from a diverse and unexpected group of allies that included business, labor, and environmental organizations.</div><div>
</div><div>On Tuesday, the Los Angeles City Council approved an ordinance clearing the way for 150 megawatts of rooftop solar in the city. The CLEAN LA Solar program will allow local property owners to sell solar power generated from rooftops and parking lots back to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP), using a mechanism called a feed-in tariff, or, in plain language, a solar cash-back program.</div><div>
</div><div>Los Angeles will be the largest city in the nation to adopt such a program, which will supply renewable energy at a reasonable cost while spurring private investment and creating high-quality jobs.</div><div>
</div><div>"This is a smart, cost-effective method for businesses to create economic opportunity while weaning ourselves off the coal-fired plants that generate most of the city's power," said Brad Cox, Immediate Past Chairman of the Los Angeles Business Council.</div><div>
</div><div>Evan Gillespie of our California Beyond Coal campaign says this victory represents two years of work with the business community in LA: "The program, when fully realized in three years, will lead to 4,500 new jobs and $500 million in economic activity here in LA," Evan says. This move will also offset 2.25 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2016.</div><div>
</div><div>Meanwhile this week, more clean energy good news came out of California when we (along with Audubon California, Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council) announced our support for a set of proposed large-scale solar power projects in Imperial County.</div><div>
</div><div>When completed, the Mt. Signal, Calexico I and Calexico II solar projects under development by 8minutenergy will produce 600 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 200,000 households. The projects are located on privately owned, disturbed land currently used to grow highly water-intensive landscaping grasses.</div><div>
</div><div>The developer has agreed to create and implement a conservation fund to address possible impacts to burrowing owls, which are potentially affected by the large-scale development of solar in Imperial County. The biological effects from the projects are significantly less than proposed renewable energy projects on environmentally sensitive public lands. These Imperial County projects show that it is possible to develop viable, cost-effective projects without sacrificing our precious desert wildlands.</div><div>
</div><div>Importantly, to help ensure this project would provide quality jobs, the Sierra Club introduced the developer to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. IBEW and 8minutenergy entered into a Project Labor Agreement to employ local Imperial Country workers for the projects. Imperial County has the highest unemployment rate in California (27 percent) and 23 percent of the population is below the poverty line. The projects represent a $1 billion economic impact to the county over 30 years and will provide $20 million for the Calexico Unified School District.</div><div>
</div><div>"These projects are truly a win-win for local Imperial County workers and the environment," said Johnny Simpson, Business Manager with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 569. "They will create good, middle-class green jobs with skilled training, health care benefits and pension retirement while reducing polluting greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change."</div><div>
</div><div>We are replacing dirty coal power with clean renewable energy that won't harm public health but will create good jobs. Now, we need to unlock this kind of innovation and job creation in every state in America. This is our energy future!</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-anne-hitt/major-new-clean-energy-pr_b_1406486.html</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>----</div><div>Business group loses ‘green’ members in global-warming fight</div><div>January 16, 2010 | Ali Winston</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>An organization representing some of California’s biggest carbon polluters is working to alter the state’s global warming law, while claiming to represent several “green” environmental companies that have since left the coalition after learning of its recent actions.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>The coalition, calling itself the AB 32 Implementation Group, says it represents a broad section of California interests focused on global warming regulations. The group, which is being managed by a large public relations firm, Woodward & McDowell, features photographs of white clouds and a field of flowers on its Web site.</div><div>
</div><div>But the organization itself includes 22 of the state's biggest carbon polluters&nbsp; &nbsp;http://californiawatch.org/data/californias-top-greenhouse-gas-polluters-mapas ranked by the state Air Resources Board. Oil refiners, cement manufacturers, chemical companies, and trucking firms figure prominently. And, according to environmentalists and lawmakers, the Implementation Group has engaged in a steady campaign to undermine the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which mandates a 25 percent reduction in the state’s emissions by 2020.</div><div>
</div><div>California Watch found companies on the Implementation Group’s membership list that no longer exist or whose executives were surprised to learn of the group’s efforts to alter the global warming law. Many of these companies are environmental-technology firms that had added a green luster to the Implementation Group’s big-business coalition, which includes more than 180 companies and associations.</div><div>
</div><div>The PR firm running the group has a history of clashing with environmentalists. In the 1990s, Burlingame-based Woodward & McDowell helped defeat Proposition 128, dubbed “Big Green,” which mandated sweeping changes to environmental laws. Company associate Dave Fogarty said his firm helped the Implementation Group draft its mission statement and manages its public image, but they have promoted a variety of issues, from school bonds to transportation funding, over the years.</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>Status of the Rulemaking</div><div>The formal Cap-and-Trade rulemaking began with the release of the Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR).&nbsp; The ISOR and formal rulemaking materials are available on the cap-and-trade rulemaking webpage. The Board Hearing on this item was held on December 16, 2010.&nbsp; The Board considered the draft resolution which was approved with modifications as discussed at the Hearing. The final resolution is available on the formal rulemaking webpage.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Final Resolution</div><div>2011 Activities Schedule</div><div>Background</div><div>The AB 32 Scoping Plan identifies a cap-and-trade program as one of the strategies California will employ to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause climate change. This program will help put California on the path to meet its goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, and ultimately achieving an 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. Under cap-and-trade, an overall limit on GHG emissions from capped sectors will be established by the cap-and-trade program and facilities subject to the cap will be able to trade permits (allowances) to emit GHGs.</div><div>
</div><div>The California Air Resources Board (ARB) will work with stakeholders to design a California cap-and-trade program that is enforceable and meets the requirements of AB 32, including the need to consider any potential impacts on disproportionately impacted communities. Consistent with AB 32, ARB must adopt the cap-and-trade regulation by January 1, 2011, and the program itself must begin in 2012.</div><div>
</div><div>California is working closely with six other western states and four Canadian provinces through the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) to design a regional cap-and-trade program that can deliver GHG emission reductions within the region at costs lower than could be realized through a California-only program. To that end, the ARB rule development schedule is being coordinated with the WCI timeline for development of a regional cap-and-trade program.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Welcome to the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). The WCI is a collaboration of independent jurisdictions working together to identify, evaluate, and implement policies to tackle climate change at a regional level. This is a comprehensive effort to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, spur investment in clean-energy technologies that create green jobs and reduce dependence on imported oil.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>map</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/wci-partners-and-observers-map</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>not tx, but az and idaho observers</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>25% of w-m/ house votes came from CA and NY sats rogers 400 pooley</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Solutions_Act_of_2006</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (also known as AB 32) is an environmental law in California, signed into law by Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006. The bill establishes a timetable to bring California into near compliance with the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol.</div><div>
</div><div>A year prior to signing the bill, Schwarzenegger had declared, "I say the debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat. And we know the time for action is now. Global warming and the pollution and burning of fossil fuels that cause it are threats we see here in California and everywhere around the world.”[1]</div><div>
</div><div>Contents</div><div>[hide]</div><div></div><div>California political consultants</div><div>From Ballotpedia</div><div>Contents</div><div>[hide]</div><div>1 Petition drive management</div><div>2 Polling firms</div><div>3 Strategy, messaging</div><div>3.1 Firms</div><div>3.2 Individuals</div><div>4 Attorneys, law firms</div><div>Petition drive management</div><div>Arno Political Consultants</div><div>Bader & Associates, Inc.</div><div>JSM, Inc.</div><div>National Petition Management</div><div>Progressive Campaigns, Inc.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Polling firms</div><div>Public Opinion Strategies</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Strategy, messaging</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Firms</div><div>Bicker, Castillo & Fairbanks</div><div>Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates</div><div>Goddard Clausen Strategic Advocacy</div><div>LFM Campaigns</div><div>Winner & Mandabach Campaigns</div><div>Lew Edwards Group</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Individuals</div><div>Chris Lehane</div><div>Chad Griffin</div><div>Chris McKenzie</div><div>Clint Reilly</div><div>Dave Gilliard</div><div>Ed Rollins</div><div>Roger Salazar</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Attorneys, law firms</div><div>Thomas W. Hiltachk</div><div>Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor</div><div>Olson, Hagel & Fishburn</div><div>Townsend, Raimundo, Besler & Usher</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>BM</div><div>
</div><div>Californians for Realistic Vehicle Standards</div><div>
</div><div>Burson-Marsteller is also behind a front group called "Californians for Realistic Vehicle Standards," formed to oppose restrictions on automobile emissions</div><div>
</div><div>of nitrogen oxide and other polluting gases. "The address of the month-old lobbying group is the Sacramento headquarters of the California Chamber of</div><div>
</div><div>Commerce, while the group's phone number is that of the Sacramento office of Burson-Marsteller, an international public relations firm often used by the auto</div><div>
</div><div>industry. Detroit auto makers provided the bulk of the money for the new group”[53].</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div></div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>"Republican Assemblyman Anthony Adams cast his "aye" budget vote at dawn today with full knowledge that, as he has said, "This will probably be the end of a political career for me."</div><div>
</div><div>...</div><div>
</div><div>"I think it's important that people know that my caucus is supportive -- that I'm not making any decision lightly," Adams said on his way into a GOP member's office Wednesday. "I'm also not making a decision outside the realm of our caucus. I'm not out there by myself or trying to engage in something that does not have the support of my caucus.""</div><div>
</div><div>The Bee article continues:</div><div>
</div><div>"A recall effort against him is already afoot.</div><div>
</div><div>The 38-year old lawmaker has been in anti-tax advocates' crosshairs ever since a Sacramento Bee story on Jan. 22 and an appearance later that day on the John and Ken radio show in Southern California. The shock jocks were blasting Republicans, including Adams, for telling The Bee that taxes were on the table in budget talks.</div><div>
</div><div>"I dare with the full knowledge that this will probably be the end of a political career for me," Adams told the radio duo. "But the fact of the matter is California is in a place where they need people who are willing to sacrifice their own personal agenda for what's right."</div><div>
</div><div>The radio hosts responded by posting an image of Adams' decapitated head on a stick on their Web site."</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>history, pt 1 daily kos</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>A look at CA politics part 1</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>by lordpet8</div><div>
</div><div>For much of its early history California had been regarded as solidly Republican state. This two part diary will look at how California slowly transformed from Republican bastion that brought us Nixon and Reagan to the Democratic stronghold we know it today.</div><div>
</div><div>This diary will start at the New Deal Era to age of Reagan in the governorship</div><div>
</div><div>Republicans held the governorship for nearly a 40 year span from (1899-1939). The only exception was former Republican Hiram Johnson winning as a Progressive in 1910. During this period the Democrats were shut out of most state wide elected positions (the only exception was the single term for senator James Phelan who was elected during the progressive era of Woodrow Wilson)</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>The Great Depression and FDR</div><div>
</div><div>GOP dominance of the state began to weaken at the start of the Great Depression. A huge influx migrants flocked to the state as the population of California exploded.These new demographics gave the state a whopping 9 additional house seats during the 1930 census. Democrats which at the time were nothing more than an insignificant minority in the legislature. They held only a mere 8 seats in the assembly and 5 seats in the state senate. With the economic downturn at hand Democrats began to make huge gains throughout the state. FDR's 1932 election coattails gave California Democrats a majority of the US House delegation and a senate seat. By the time FDR secured a landslide reelection in 1936 Democrats had tripled their numbers in the state senate (5 to 15) and had won control of the state assembly for the first time in a half a century. President Roosevelt openly supported Culbert Olsen's candidacy for the governorship in 1938. Olsen's victory ended the Republican's 40 year hold over the governorship and was known as one of the founding father's the modern California Democratic party.</div><div>
</div><div>Olsen defied the national Republican wave of the 1938 midterms and defeated the sitting conservative Republican governor, Frank Merriam. Olsen had campaigned on a New Deal/Pro-Labor platform and won in a landslide. Merriam as it turned out had committed political suicide by angering both the left and the right. His actions in suppressing the</div><div>
</div><div>Longshore Strike angered progressives and labor communities. Secondly his support of a tax increase infuriated many conservative Republicans. These factors tipped the scale in favor of a Olsen victory.</div><div>
</div><div>Trivia: Olsen was an intriguing governor, although raised a Mormon he declared himself an atheist at age 10 and refused to say "under god" while taking his oath of office.</div><div>
</div><div>Olson had a rocky relationship with his divided legislature, which made it tough to pass his new deal proposals. Business friendly Republicans remained in control of the state senate, while the assembly was under the control of a coalition containing both conservative and socialist Democrats (yes it's shocking to see conservative and socialist running under the same party)</div><div>
</div><div>The GOP was on the defense during the New Deal era, and decided to create new a organization. The GOP activists created the California Republican Assembly(CRA) in 1933 which would serve as the conscience of the CA GOP party. They endorsed attorney general, Earl Warren for Governor to take on Olsen in the 1942 gubernatorial election. An important note: although the CRA today is viewed as a very conservative organization it was not so during this period. In fact moderates and progressives made up a healthy portion of the CRA. Warren, himself campaigned as moderate to appeal to both sides of electorate. Olsen faced a tremendous uphill battle for reelection. Unable to accomplish much with his divided legislature and a strong Republican wave election on his heels, Olson was ultimately defeated by Warren in a landslide. Republicans resumed control of the assembly and padded their majorities. Earl Warren won reelection in a rout in 1946 by taking in 90% of the vote. He had taken advantage of the cross filling system in California that allowed him to win both the Republican and Democratic primaries ensuring an easy victory. The success of Earl Warren earned him the VP spot on Thomas Dewey's 1948 Presidential Campaign. In a major upset&nbsp; President Truman won the election and narrowly carried the state.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>The 1950 US Senate Race and the Age of Ike</div><div>
</div><div>The 1950 midterm elections resulted in a near clean sweep for Republicans who gained back a senate seat with Richard Nixon. The current incumbent Democratic senator, Sheridan Downey had grown more conservative and had become a big supporter of the oil industry. Downey faced a spirited primary from congresswoman, Helen Gahagan Douglas. Ill health resulted in Downey dropping out and endorsing a another Democrat, Manchester Boddy, in the primary. When Douglas won the Democratic nomination, Downey promptly endorsed Nixon as he felt Douglas was too liberal for the state. Nixon used his usual campaign scare tactics by painting Douglas as communist sympathizer ("who was pink right down to her underwear") who was far too left for CA. Nixon ran with the advantage of running for the open seat with a Democratic candidate still bruised from a bitter primary. The end result was an easy victory for Nixon in the good Republican year.</div><div>
</div><div>Trivia: Both nicknames "the pink lady" for Douglas and "Tricky Dick" were originally coined by Manchester Boddy. Nixon and Douglas would then recycle these nicknames during the general election.</div><div>
</div><div>Earl Warren's popularity enabled him to win a 3rd term in 1950 (the first CA governor to do so). The overall results of the 1950 midterm elections left Pat Brown as the sole statewide elected Democrat in the state. In 1952 Eisenhower selected Nixon as his running mate. Although Nixon had less than 2 years of the senate under his belt, he had made a name for himself as strong opponent of communism after his house career. The Ike-Nixon ticket easily won California and Republicans padded their majorities in all levels of government in the state. Ike nominated Earl Warren to the position of Chief of Justice and Republican Lt. Governor Goodwin Knight assumed the governorship.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Democrats ,down in their luck, decided to reorganize the party and formed the California Democratic Council (CDC).</div><div>
</div><div>Ike easily carried CA in his 1956 reelection campaign, but at the same time Democrats gained 4 seats in the state senate. This small change resulted in Democrats winning control of the chamber for the first time since 1890 (which may have served as a harbinger for upcoming 1958 midterms). Republican never again won back the state senate which has now been in Democratic hands continuously for 56 years!</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>The Big Switch and start of a Democratic California</div><div>
</div><div>Republicans still had a strong grip in the state, but there were growing divisions within the conservative and moderate wings. Three men fought for influence of the state party. Goodwin Knight ,now serving a second term in his own right, represented the moderate wing (with sympathies to labor unions). William F Knowland ,US Senator and leader of the Senate Republicans, symbolized the conservative wing of the party. Finally there was Richard Nixon ,current Vice President, who had his eyes set on winning the Republican nomination for president in 1960.&nbsp; The problem was that Knowland also had his eyes on the presidency. Unsatisfied with the US senate, Knowland felt the statehouse would be a better spring board for the Presidency. Thus Knowland decided to challenge sitting governor Knight for the governorship by running to Knight's right. The growing conservative movement within the CA GOP would make the primary an uphill battle for Knight. To avoid a bruising primary Ike, Nixon and Knowland pressured Knight to run instead for Knowland's open senate seat. Knight agreed and the move was dubbed the "big switch" as a means to keep two popular GOP officials in office. Also on the ballot was a Right to Work initiative, Prop 18. Knowland, who wanted to bolster his conservative credentials, endorsed the proposition.</div><div>
</div><div>The 1958 midterms served to be decisive win for Democrats. Proposition 18 was wildly unpopular with voters and led to massive turnouts by unions and pro-labor forces in the state. In a single election Republicans were decimated on all fronts. Knowland and Knight went on to lose their respective races in landslides to&nbsp; Pat Brown and Clair Engle.</div><div>
</div><div>Fun Fact: On June 10, 1964, during the roll call for the historic, successful effort to break the filibuster on what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when the clerk reached "Mr. Engle," there was no reply. The tumor had robbed Engle of his ability to speak. Slowly lifting an arm, he pointed to his eye, thereby signaling his affirmative vote ("aye").The cloture vote was 71-29, four votes more than the two-thirds required to cut off the filibuster. Nine days later the Senate approved the Act itself.</div><div>
</div><div>Democrats also padded their state senate majority, won control of the state assembly, regained a majority in the US house delegation, and took 5 out of the 6 partisan statewide races. Since this election Republicans have never been able to gain a majority of the CA House Delegation.</div><div>
</div><div>Trivia: shortly after the 1958 elections Pat Brown was a special guest on the game show "What's my line"</div><div>
</div><div>Democrats decided to have their national convention in Los Angeles where they nominated JFK and LBJ. The ticket would narrowly win the presidency while Nixon won CA.</div><div>
</div><div>Pat Brown went on to stop a strong challenge from Richard Nixon in the 1962 gubernatorial election. Nixon, suffering from two stinging defeats in a row, went on to declare his "political retirement" famously telling the media that they "won't have Dick Nixon to kick around"</div><div>
</div><div>The 1964 Presidential election became a major turning point for the CA GOP, up until this point the moderate and conservative factions of the party constantly fought over for control of the party.&nbsp; The candidacy of of Barry Goldwater, an ardent conservative, aggravated the situation in the state. Moderates and establishment Republicans favored Nelson Rockefeller in the CA primary. Conservatives in the CRA at the time did not have the votes&nbsp; give Goldwater the endorsement of the CRA. Instead conservatives worked to override the 2/3 rules required for an endorsement and just have a simple majority voter. The Rockefeller supporters(Republican moderates) eventually left the convention, giving the CRA&nbsp; the opportunity to endorse Goldwater and made the CRA the conservative organization that we see today. Despite this seemingly Goldwater/Conservative victory, deep rifts within the GOP were still visible. Liberal Republican Senator Thomas Kuchel, refused to endorse Goldwater ticket, earning the ire of conservatives. 1964 was a pivotal battle for the heart and sole of the CA GOP. Conservative began gaining clout in the party. Liberal moderate Republicans would still exist but their influence and stature in the party was fading. Lyndon Johnson carried the state handily (by nearly 20 points). It was the first time a Democratic candidate had won CA since Truman won it in 1948. The feat would not to be repeated till Bill Clinton won the state in 1992.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>1966 Republican Resurgence</div><div>
</div><div>Incumbent Democratic governor Pat Brown ran for a 3rd consecutive in a rough political year. The now conservative dominated CRA wholeheartedly endorsed Ronald Reagan for governor. Reagan, a former liberal New Deal Democrat, had grown more conservative and became a Republican in 1962.</div><div>
</div><div>Trivia: The last time Ronald Reagan actively supported a Democratic candidate was in 1950 when he helped Helen Gahagan Douglas in her unsuccessful Senate campaign against Richard Nixon. Yes that's the same Douglas who Nixon once labeled as the "pink lady" for her supposed communist leanings.</div><div>
</div><div>Reagan had gained much of his conservative fame from when he gave his "a time for choosing" speech in which he endorsed Goldwater's campaign for president. Running against anti war protests, and welfare, Reagan upended Brown in a landslide election. Republicans won 5/6 of the statewide partisan offices.</div><div>
</div><div>The 1968 elections came with mixed results for the GOP. Nixon easily carried the state and GOP won 2 house seats along with control of the state assembly. At the same though, Senator&nbsp; Thomas Kuchel was narrowly defeated in the primary by the conservative Max Rafferty. Many consider Kuchel's loss to his increasingly liberal views in a party that was rapidly moving rightward. Rafferty proved to be too conservative for CA and was defeated by Democratic State Controller, Alan Cranston. The senate seat has been in Democratic hands ever since.</div><div>
</div><div>Ronald Reagan had now become a darling of the conservatives, with his tough tactics against Berkley anti-war protesters during "Bloody Thursday" at the people's park protests. In 1970 Reagan faced a spirited challenge from former Democratic Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh, but was easily given a 2nd term.</div><div>
</div><div>The most interesting race to watch was the US Senate race. Democrats had a bruising primary between two congressman to face the incumbent Republican senator George Murphy.&nbsp; The two congressman were John Tunney and George Brown (who also happens to be the last democrat to represent my hometown Riverside). Both Democrats questioned the war in Vietnam but differed in opinion when considering the military draft. George Brown, known as a liberal democrat who managed to win in largely Republican areas, campaigned as the anti-war candidate who had always opposed the war from the start including the draft. Tunney, painted himself&nbsp; Robert "Kennedy-esque" candidate, who highlighted his youth and charisma. He campaigned as center-right candidate. While he wasn't in full support of the war he still approved of the draft. Tunney had the advantage of getting into the race early and having a bigger organization, but still was trailing to Brown. The primary got nasty with Tunney saying that Brown supported the violence going on in the campuses. Brown countered with calling Tunney a spoiled rich kid. An 11th hour ad blitz allowed Tunney to narrowly beat out Brown. At this point Republican Murphy was leading in the polls by over 20 points. But this all changed as Tunney began getting his message out in the state. Although he was a center-right candidate Tunney was still to the left of Murphy who was the staunchest supporter of the Vietnam war. Murphy had suffered from throat cancer which made him barely able to speak over a whisper (further hurting his campaign). In the end Tunney won the race by 9 points giving Democrats both US senate seats the first time since Milton Latham lost his seat in 1862!.</div><div>
</div><div>Trivia: Tunney's successful Senate race in 1970 is reportedly the inspiration for the 1972 Robert Redford film The Candidate.</div><div>
</div><div>Democrats also retook control of the state assembly. Jerry Brown was elected as Secretary of state and was the sole Democrat in the statewide offices.</div><div>
</div><div>This concludes the first part of my California Politics diary, I hope you enjoyed it. There was so much more I would have loved to include but I wanted to keep things as concise as possible.</div><div>
</div><div>If you're interested in hearing more about the 1950 US senate campaign (which If I covered in full detail would have a taken a whole diary by itself) I recommend you try here</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>Anyways when I continue we'll look at Jerry Brown terms as governor, Prop 13, and much much more.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/01/1060209/-A-look-at-CA-politics-part-1</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>http://www.iandrinstitute.org/California.htm</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>The initiative and referendum are available at the state level and in every city. The state-level initiative and referendum were adopted in 1911. San Francisco and Vallejo were the first cities to adopt the initiative in 1898, and California counties were given initiative rights in 1893.</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;Progressive-era Governor Hiram Johnson is well known for leading the successful fight for direct democracy in the Golden State, the critical groundwork laid by Dr. John Randolph Haynes may have been as important. A Philadelphian who held doctorates in both medicine and philosophy, Haynes moved west to Los Angeles in 1887, at the age of 34. He established a successful medical practice, counting many prominent Southern Californians among his patients, invested his profits skillfully in real estate, and eventually became a millionaire.</div><div>
</div><div>In 1895 Haynes helped found the California Direct Legislation League, dedicated to winning the rights of initiative, referendum, and recall statewide and in every local jurisdiction. He won election in 1900 to a Los Angeles "board of freeholders" responsible for drafting a new charter for the city. Haynes used this strategic position to ensure that the board included I&R in the new charter, only to see the entire charter thrown out by the courts on a technicality. A new board, without Haynes, was elected in 1902, but he continued to advocate I&R and brought Eltweed Pomeroy of New Jersey, president of the National Direct Legislation League, from the East Coast specifically to address the board. After Pomeroy's speech, the board voted to include initiative, referendum, and recall in the new charter. Voters ratified the charter in 1903.</div><div>
</div><div>Haynes then concentrated his efforts on winning statewide I&R. The odds against him were daunting. The entire state government had for decades been under the control of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Bribery was the accepted method of doing business in the state capitol. Realizing the hopelessness of dealing with the current officeholders, Haynes and other reformers began a campaign to get rid of them and remake state government from top to bottom. In May 1907 they founded the Lincoln-Roosevelt League of Republican Clubs, and elected several of their candidates to the legislature. These legislators worked for a bill to require the nomination of party candidates through primary election rather than state party conventions. The bill passed, and the League's 1910 gubernatorial candidate, Hiram Johnson, ran in the state's first primary election. Johnson won the primary and the general election and swept dozens of other reformers into the legislature on his political coattails.</div><div>
</div><div>Johnson and the new Progressive majority in the legislature sweeping changes in the state's government. Among these were adoption of the initiative, referendum, and recall at both the state and local levels. Voters ratified these amendments in a special election on October 10, 1911.</div><div>
</div><div>Reformers in Los Angeles won voter approval, in December 1911, of a unique local initiative to create a municipally owned, yet editorially independent, newspaper to compete with the anti-labor, anti-reform Los Angeles Times and provide unbiased news and an equal forum for all political views. Each political party was given a column in every weekly edition. This bold experiment in free speech attracted the state's top newspaper talent and got off to a highly successful start. After less than a year, however, it failed because of the harassment of vendors and an advertiser boycott organized by the Los Angeles reformers' arch-enemy, Harrison Gray Otis, owner of the Times.</div><div>
</div><div>The first significant statewide initiative in California abolished the poll tax in 1914, and a construction bond initiative for the University of California also won voter approval that year. Immediately thereafter, anti-initiative forces launched their first counterattack, in the form of a constitutional amendment passed by the legislature to make it more difficult to pass initiative bond proposals. Haynes mobilized his pro-initiative forces and defeated the amendment at the polls in 1915.</div><div>
</div><div>Anti-initiative forces tried again in 1920, this time using the initiative process themselves to propose a measure that would have made it virtually impossible to put any tax-related initiatives on future ballots. Haynes mobilized his forces again and defeated the measure at the polls; and he won a third, similar contest in 1922. After this he changed the name of his California Direct Legislation League to "The League to Protect the Initiative," and for the rest of his life kept close watch over the legislature to make sure that it enacted no laws to restrict I&R procedures. Haynes died on October 30, 1937, at the age of 84.</div><div>
</div><div>On the ballot in 1934 were four successful constitutional initiatives to revamp the state's law enforcement and criminal justice systems. All four were sponsored by Alameda County District Attorney Earl Warren, who went on to become the state's attorney general in 1938, its governor in 1942, and the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1953. The principal changes involved procedures for judicial selection and retention, and increasing the woefully inadequate powers and jurisdiction of the office of attorney general. Warren's foresight in revamping the justice system before running for attorney general accounted in no small measure for his effectiveness once elected, which in turn made possible his rise to higher office.</div><div>
</div><div>One of the highest stakes initiative campaigns, in terms of campaign spending was the 1956 struggle over changes in the state regulation and taxation of oil and gas production. The initiative was sponsored by one group of oil companies that sought to make their business more profitable, and opposed by another group of oil firms that preferred the existing system. Campaign funds spent by both sides totaled over $5 million. The 1956 initiative lost: California voters, inundated with conflicting claims about a complex measure, took the cautious route and voted "no."</div><div>
</div><div>Almost as expensive was the gargantuan 1958 labor-capital conflict over a "Right to Work" (open shop) initiative sponsored by employers. This battle ended in a double defeat for employers: not only did voters decisively reject the initiative, but the opposition campaign mobilized Democrats and union members to vote in droves, resulting in the election of Governor Edmund G. Brown, Sr., the first Democrat to occupy that office in 16 years.</div><div>
</div><div>In the 1960s, California liberals soured on the initiative process as a result of two measures passed by voters in 1964. The first repealed the Rumford Fair Housing Act, which the legislature had passed, and Governor Brown had signed, in 1963. The second banned cable television. That measure was sponsored by theater owners who, fearing competition, advertised the initiative as guaranteeing "free television" and eliminating the specter of "pay television." Both 1964 initiatives were later overturned by the courts as unconstitutional.</div><div>
</div><div>The California initiative process gave rise to a new breed of campaign professional: the paid petition circulator. With signature requirements doubling nearly every decade, citizen groups were unable to rely solely on volunteer effort. As early as World War I, Joseph Robinson was offering his organizing services to initiative proponents. His firm, which paid its employees a fee for each signature brought in, had a virtual monopoly on the petition business from 1920 to 1948 - a period during which, Robinson estimated, his firm was involved in 98 percent of the successful statewide initiative petition drives. Robinson stayed in business into the late 1960s, when he offered his services to Ed and Joyce Koupal, but by then he had competitors.</div><div>
</div><div>California's most famous initiative was Proposition 13, approved by voter in 1978. Proposition 13 capped property taxes at 1 percent of value and limited assessment increases. It sparked a so-called tax-revolt across the country that ran for almost a decade, and also led to a revival in initiative use across the country as citizens increasingly turned to the initiative process to gain a greater control over their lives.</div><div>
</div><div>In recent decades, Californian has led the nation in high profile initiatives. California initiatives have allowed voters to express their views on wide variety of important social, economic, and governmental issues including term limits, bilingual education, racial preferences/affirmative action, medical marijuana, punishment for crimes, taxes, government debt, and same-sex marriage. Elected officials in other parts of the country sometimes vilify the initiative process by saying, “we don’t want to be like California.” Despite the view from outside (and in some cases inside) the state that the initiative process has been a problem for state government, the process remains overwhelmingly popular among the electorate. Defenders note as well that California is not the only state to face economic and fiscal problems, and that many of the problematic policies were passed by the legislature not by initiatives.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>
</div><div>===</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>&nbsp;</div>