But it’s not.  The overwhelming majority of Democrats who voted for the House clean energy bill are doing just fine.  It’s the ones who voted against it who are in more trouble. 

We can test this proposition by starting with a recent news analysis in the Wall Street Journal, which offers a version of this misleading narrative.  The paper looked at 12 close House races with Democratic incumbents and showed their pattern of voting for or against Obama on four key issues including clean energy.  The results showed an amazing symmetry:  Democrats that voted with Obama were doing poorly and those who voted against him were doing better.  The implication provides an obvious story-line for election night, with a built-in warning about the future for any surviving Democrats.  A few days later Kimberly Strassel repeated this narrative in “Cap-and-Trade Crackup” in the Wall Street Journal.

Yet facts in political matters seldom fall so neatly into place.  I wondered if the races were truly representative or whether they just happened to prove this point, so I did my own analysis and was struck by how contrary the actual facts were, especially on the issue of clean energy.

First, I took the toss up races in the Cook Report this week and evaluated how Democrats who voted on the House clean energy bill (the American Clean Energy and Security Act) were faring.  Simply put, in the tossup races there was no real relationship between the members’ votes and how they were doing politically.  Basically it was almost a coin toss, with nearly half of Democrats in these tight races having voted against the bill (16 of 40).  For whatever reason these Democrats were having a tough race, it wasn’t voting for the clean energy bill.  If anything, the overall numbers suggested that backing the bill was generally good for Democrats insofar as over four-fifths (83%) of the Democrats that voted for the bill are now favored in their races while less than half of the Democrats (46%) who had voted against it are favored. 

In fact, a recent series of polls by the NRDC Action Fund in 23 closely contested congressional districts shows support for clean energy legislation by a wide margin, even when both sides of the argument are presented.  This includes races in coal states such as Colorado, Ohio and Pennsylvania.  And why not when the potential for clean energy job creation is so great in those states?  This is one reason the national polling in support of clean energy legislation has been so persistently positive for the last year, despite the onslaught of opposition money and misleading industry statements, and even if you use the jargon term, “cap-and-trade.”

I’m not saying that the bill was popular everywhere or an easy sell in every district.  However, I am definitely saying that the conservatives’ proposition that the bill was a universally unpopular measure, and that it only made sense for Democrats in swing districts to vote against it, is not supported by the evidence and never has been.    

In this analysis, the clean energy vote in the House seems to have helped more Democrats than it hurt, and certainly can’t be blamed for the large number of Democratic toss up races.  In fact, if the supporters of the legislation went out and sold the virtues of backing the clean energy bill, they would probably find the American people would give them positive credit for associating with it.  This would be a much better strategy than just accepting the conservative narrative about what a hard vote it was, and then wondering how to hide from having done the right thing.

Recently the NRDC Action Fund polled 23 competitive races for the U.S. House of Representatives and found widespread support for passing clean energy legislation. It’s no wonder, given the potential for jobs in these places. (See chart at end of blog for state-by-state job growth potential in states where competitive races occur.)

The potential for new jobs from clean energy legislation is staggering, up to nearly two million over the next decade. This by itself won’t solve the current unemployment problem and won’t happen right away, but it moves in the right direction. And this legislation has the added benefits of cutting the amount of money we send to other countries for foreign oil by two trillion dollars and the amount of dangerous carbon pollution we produce by two billion tons by 2020. It’s a dramatic package altogether.

But don’t take the word of the NRDC Action Fund for it. It’s mainly because of the job creating potential that groups such as American Businesses for Clean Energy, a coalition of over 6,000 businesses including Nike and Alcoa, have endorsed congressional action on clean energy legislation. Labor groups such as the Blue-Green Alliance, which includes the steelworkers and boilermakers unions, have also thrown its support behind legislation.

Numerous other studies from independent and academic sources set out a range of estimates for the job creation potential of clean energy legislation, but all agree it’s significant. A study by the University of California analyzed the job-creating potential of clean energy legislation and found that the U.S. stands to gain 918,000 to 1.9 million jobs by 2020. Another study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that comprehensive clean energy legislation would result in an average increase of 203,000 jobs annually through 2020.

It’s sad but true that another area of job creation from the legislation is the industry-sponsored misinformation business, which has spent millions of dollars to achieve this state of paralysis in the Senate. Using a typical tactic for them, industry trade groups and the conservative think tanks the finance have attacked the clean energy bill by cranking out faux studies with discredited methodologies. Their favorite (though false) tagline for the legislation is “job-killing energy tax.”

We heard the same false expressions from many of the same groups two decades ago when Congress passed the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. They argued that we couldn’t afford clean air, that legislation would cost too much, and that it wouldn’t save enough lives to be worth it. Yet the Clean Air Act has turned out to be one of the most successful and popular pieces of environmental legislation ever, as I noted in testimony before the House Committee on Science and Technology. Even the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the George W. Bush White House said that the benefits of the Clean Air Act the previous ten years had far outpaced the costs, by up to $545 billion. In fact the benefits were twelve times higher than the costs (measured as a mean of the range of estimates), an astonishing ratio. To repeat, it was the Bush administration OMB saying that!

Times are truly tough economically. Oddly, it turns out that some politicians, unlike most Americans, believe the best way to keep their jobs is to not do them. Yet national polling shows persistent support by the American people for passing clean energy legislation. It’s no wonder, such legislation has the potential to create millions of new jobs in America. If it saves the jobs of some politicians who did the right thing by voting for it, that’s ok too.

The conservative’s spin game on clean energy legislation in Congress relies on a characteristic name game. One of their favorite names for it is cap-and-trade, in part because it’s unfriendly jargon and in part because no one really knows what it means. Still the polling for this policy shows it remains highly popular with the public, even with the use of this label, and even more so when the policy is accurately described.

One needs only to go to a publically available source of polling, such as pollingreport.com, to validate this pattern from multiple, independent sources, even after the opposition’s PR onslaught following the passage of clean energy legislation by the House.

• USA Today/Gallup Poll (6/11-13/10): Do you favor or oppose Congress passing new legislation … [that would] regulate energy output from private companies in an attempt to reduce global warming?’’ 56% favor/40% oppose

• ABC News/Washington Post Poll (6/3-6/10): Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?” 71% should/26% should not

• Pew Research Center Poll (2/3-9/10): “[D]o you favor or oppose setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, even if it may mean higher energy prices?” 52% favor/35% oppose

• Ipsos/McClatchy Poll (12/3-6/09): “There’s a proposed system called ‘cap-and-trade’ that some say would lower the pollution levels that lead to global warming.[further description follows]…Would you support or oppose this system?” 52% support/41% oppose

• Associated Press/Stanford University Poll (11/17-29/09): “There’s a proposed system called ‘cap-and-trade’. The government would issue permits limiting the amount of greenhouse gases companies can put out. [further description follows]…Would you favor or oppose this system?” 58% favor/37% oppose

• CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (10/16-18/09): “Under a proposal called ‘cap-and-trade,’ the federal government would limit the amount of greenhouse gases that companies could produce in their factories or power plants.[further description follows]…Would you favor or oppose this proposal?” 60% favor/37% oppose

Recently the NRDC Action Fund polled 23 competitive races for the U.S. House of Representatives and found widespread support for passing clean energy legislation. Although the poll didn’t use the flattering name of the House bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, or the cap-and-trade jargon, the poll did offer the opponent’s misleading attack that the bill would be a job reducing energy tax. By an impressive 20 point spread, the voters in these district said they were more likely to vote for a candidate who supported this legislation.   

The fact is that the public wants Congress and the administration to address energy issues, understands that it will take major investments to rid ourselves of our unsafe dependence on oil and to reduce pollution from it, knows this investment will create new jobs, and prefers a renewable energy path to get us there. What is even more remarkable about polls on this subject is how durable they are over the past year even as the conservative spin machine has hammered away at the concept and the administration’s clean energy proposal in Congress.

What should be obvious is that the American people care more about results than calling out names. The question should be: “Are you for or against a clean energy future for America?” Then we should let the public speak for itself.

Michael Bennet was little known when he was appointed by Colorado Governor Bill Ritter to succeed Ken Salazar, who had been named Interior Secretary. Bennet entered public service in 2005, first as Chief of Staff to Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper and then as Denver Schools Superintendent.  In his short time in the Senate, though, he has proven to be an environmental champion. This November, Bennet will be challenged by Weld County District Attorney, Republican Ken Buck.

During his first term in the Senate, Michael Bennet has supported environmental protection and efforts to transition to clean, sustainable energy. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) gave Bennet a perfect, 100% rating for 2009. The Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Sierra Club, Clean Water Action and LCV have endorsed Bennet’s re-election bid. In a statement on its endorsement, LCV Senior Vice President Tony Massaro said, “We are proud to endorse Senator Bennet for election because he is working to ensure that America – and more importantly Colorado – leads in the creation of the 21st century’s new clean energy economy.”

Bennet has been particularly strong on clean energy issues. Shortly after taking office he supported the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, which made unprecedented investments in a clean energy and green infrastructure, and directed more than $7 billion to Colorado. He voted against an effort led by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating major carbon polluters under the Clean Air Act. And, he has remained a steadfast supporter of passing clean energy and climate legislation. When Senate leadership decided not to move ahead with such legislation this Congress, Bennet said in a statement, “We simply can’t afford to let the opportunity to create new clean energy jobs and break our reliance on foreign fossil fuels slip away. “ In the same statement, Bennet promised that, “while Washington can’t seem to get its act together, I’m going to keep up the fight to pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill that moves Colorado and the country forward.”

Ken Buck could not be further from Bennet in his positions on energy and environmental issues. On his campaign website, Buck labels climate legislation a “looming disaster,” and an “economic suicide mission,” and calls for “aggressively expand[ing] energy production in our country, including stepping up drilling and looking to nuclear power as one of our best sources for non-carbon energy.” The fact is, however, that climate legislation such as the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which passed the House in 2009, would create economic opportunities and jobs for Colorado and nationwide. According to researchers at the University of Illinois, Yale University and University of Colorado, climate legislation has the potential to create 1.9 million jobs nationally and more than 30,000 in Colorado alone. Furthermore, the Department of Agriculture looked at ACES and found that it will create “annual net returns to farmers rang[ing] from $1 billion per year in 2015-20 to almost $15-20 billion in 2040-50” — returns that would certainly benefit Colorado’s rural communities.

Buck even challenges the science of global warming saying, “I am one of those people that Al Gore refers to as a skeptic.” He explains, “While I think the earth is warming, I don’t think that man-made causes are the primary factor.” Leading scientists at the National Academy of Sciences would take exception, having recently completed the most comprehensive review of climate science ever and finding, “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.”

The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.

Today, we examine Pennsylvania’s 8th Congressional district — Bucks County, Montgomery County, and northeast Philadelphia.  Currently, the 8th Congressional district is represented in the U.S. House of Representatives by Patrick J. Murphy (D). Murphy is being challenged by Republican Mike Fitzpatrick.

Where does Rep. Murphy stand on clean energy and environmental issues?   In 2009, Murphy received a 93% rating from the League of Conservation Voters.   Murphy also voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), about which he correctly says, it "will create millions of new American jobs, limit the pollution that causes climate change, and reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil by investing in American-made clean energy."  In addition, Murphy co-sponsored H.R. 890, the American Renewable Energy Act, as well as H.R. 2222, the Green Communities Act and H.R. 1778, the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) Program, among other excellent environmental legislation. Finally, Rep. Murphy touts the fact that "Bucks County is home to the fourth largest solar field in the United States – the largest east of the Mississippi River" and that "Nearly 1,000 people have been put to work building components for wind turbines and solar panels at the old U.S. Steel site in Fairless Hills in Bucks County."
 
In contrast, Mike Fitzpatrick says he  "oppose[s] legislation currently being considered by [C]ongress that would implement a carbon ‘cap and trade’ system."  Fitzpatrick also says he supports "a balanced national energy policy that includes safe, nuclear power, clean coal, responsible offshore drilling and economical, renewable energy." When he served in Congress, Fitzpatrick received a 61% League of Conservation Voters rating in 2005 and a 73% League of Conservation Voters rating in 2006.  Fitzpatrick showed a lot of promise last time he was in Congress, even co-cosponsoring Rep. Henry Waxman’s Safe Climate Act of 2006– which would have cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.  Unfortunately, he has had a change of heart and now says he is against "Cap and Trade."

The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.

Originally posted on The MarkUp.

This is the nineteenth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.

From the Scotch-Irish who settled there starting in the 1760s to today’s residents, the people of southwestern Virginia are fiercely independent. The 9th Congressional District, which covers all of southern Virginia west of Roanoke, has been known as the “Fighting Ninth,” because of its raucous politics. The district was first dominated by farmers, later coal miners (though the coal industry has been in decline for more than twenty years there), and now by workers in high-tech industries. Bill Clinton carried the district twice, however George W. Bush won in 2000 and 2004 by wider margins than Clinton ever did, and John McCain won the district 59-40% in 2008.

Democrat Rick Boucher is in his 14th term representing the district in the U.S. House. Boucher’s family is steeped in southwest Virginia politics – his mother was Washington County’s Democratic Party chairwoman, and his grandfather and great-grandfather were Democratic members of the state House of Delegates. He hasn’t faced a particularly close race since his first re-election bid in 1984. This fall he will be challenged by Republican Delegate and House Majority Leader, Morgan Griffith.

During his long Congressional career, Boucher has voted as a moderate, making his greatest mark on telecommunication and technology issues. He’s been a reliable vote on clean energy and environmental issues, earning a c from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) last year. Boucher played an influential role in shaping the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the first global warming bill ever to pass a chamber of Congress, as the leading voice for coal-state representatives on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. On the House floor during debate on ACES, Boucher said the bill:

…achieves broad reductions in greenhouse gases, enhances America’s energy security, and by placing a price on carbon dioxide emissions will unleash investments in clean energy technologies that will create millions of new jobs. These energy technologies will evolve from America’s laboratories. They will be deployed at home. They will be exported around the world. They will be the foundation for our next technology revolution…

This is a responsible measure. It is carefully balanced. It reduces greenhouse gases by 83 percent by 2050 as compared to 2005 levels. It keeps electricity rates affordable. It enables coal usage to grow as the demand for electricity increases. And it opens the door to a more secure energy future and the creation of millions of new jobs innovating, deploying and exporting to the world the new low CO2 emitting technologies that will power our energy future.”

Boucher backs up his claims in that speech with facts from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and experts at the Environmental Protection Agency. But that hasn’t stopped Morgan Griffith from asserting, without any persuasive evidence, that ACES will “result in massive job cuts in Southwest Virginia’s coal industry while raising electricity, gasoline, and heating prices for all consumers.” Though, as someone who also says that “many scientists do not even believe [global warming] is happening,” Griffith doesn’t seem bound by the facts.

The truth, according to our top experts at the National Academy of Sciences is that “Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.” As to Griffith’s loss of jobs argument, according to collaborative research by the University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California, ACES could lead to as many as 1.9 million new jobs nationally; 50,000 in Virginia alone.

Griffith’s misguided views on clean energy legislation and climate change become more understandable when you look at his major campaign contributors. For starters, Griffith has received $5,000 this cycle from the notorious Koch Industries, which according to Greenpeace, has "quietly funneled [$50 million] to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming." Koch also has a horrendous environmental record, including being fined $30 million for its role in 300 oil spills that resulted in more than three million gallons of crude oil leaking into ponds, lakes, streams and coastal waters. As if that’s not bad enough, Griffith also has taken $2,500 in contributions from Valero Energy, one of the Texas oil companies funding an effort to repeal California’s landmark clean energy and climate law. Finally, over the years, Griffith has accepted large donations from coal interests (e.g., the Virginia Coal Association) and from coal-fired utilities like Dominion Virginia Power. Unsurprisingly, Griffith has a poor environmental record (e.g., a measly 27% rating from the Virginia League of Conservation Voters in 2009).

The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.

Originally posted on The MarkUp.

This is the eighteenth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.

Tucson, Arizona has quite an environmental legacy. For 40 years it was the political base of the Udall brothers — Stewart, a U.S. Representative in the 1950s and Interior Secretary in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, and Morris, a U.S. Representative for 30 years and a pioneering environmentalist. Most of Tucson, along with Arizona’s southeastern desert, make up the state’s 8th Congressional District. Politically this district leans Republican, but only slightly. John McCain carried the district in the 2008 election, and for more than 20 years moderate Republican Jim Kolbe represented the district in the U.S. House. Since Kolbe’s retirement in 2007, the 8th district has been represented by Tucson native and former state Senator Gabrielle Giffords (D). This November, Giffords is being challenged by Republican Jesse Kelly, an Iraq War veteran and “Tea Party” favorite, who won the August 24 primary in an upset victory over former State Senator Jonathan Paton.

Giffords has built on the Udall brothers’ environmental legacy, making solar energy one of her top legislative priorities, saying that she wants Arizona to be “the Silicon Valley of solar energy.” During her first three years in Congress, Giffords has voted the right way on just about every environmental issue, earning a career rating of over 90% from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). Last June, she supported the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), our nation’s first climate bill and an important step forward in creating green jobs. Her vote for ACES was supported by many Arizona community and business leaders. In a statement following the vote, Giffords said that ACES will “help jumpstart our economy. We’ve seen that right here in Arizona, where a small but vibrant solar energy industry is taking root. Arizona can be a world leader in solar energy production and use. The American Clean Energy and Security Act will help us achieve this goal.”

Kelly’s position on clean energy and climate couldn’t be further from Giffords. He believes we should “toss cap and trade,” which he calls a “massive tax increase & jobs killer.” The truth, according to according to collaborative research by the University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California, is that ACES could lead to as many as 1.9 new jobs nationally; 24,000 in Arizona alone. And according to experts at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the bill would cost the average household $175 a year, or less than 50 cents a day.

Kelly doesn’t just stop at attacking ACES, he also takes issue with the overwhelming evidence of global warming, calling it “junk-science.” The experts at the National Academy of Sciences, our most authoritative scientific body, strongly disagree with Kelly’s claims, saying, ”Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.”

Kelly’s stance on climate is unsurprising given that he has signed Americans for Prosperity’s “No Climate Tax Pledge.” Americans for Prosperity is the big oil funded think tank behind the tea party movementwhose campaign is being supported by ultra-conservative Koch Industries.

The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.

By Kristin Eberhard

Originally posted on The MarkUp.

Now that Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has announced her opposition on Proposition 23, this dirty energy proposition stands as the main issue that she and the Democratic candidate Jerry Brown agree on. While Whitman’s stance against Proposition 23 is good news for California, jobs and our strong clean air and health standards, it is troubling that she coupled her technical opposition while simultaneously announcing her intent to suspend AB 32 for at least a year if elected Governor. Her position sounds like she wants it both ways. Delaying AB 32 would throw a monkey wrench into the implementation of our clean energy polices, and significantly hamper the transition of the state – indeed, the nation – to a clean energy economy.

Sponsored by out-of-state oil interests, Proposition 23 would wreak havoc with implementation of AB 32, our country’s only economy-wide clean energy law, an initiative that is creating thousands of cleantech sector jobs, stimulating research in clean energy and alternative fuels, and cutting the state’s emissions of greenhouse gases. Proposition 23 would keep us addicted to dirty fuels, kill jobs and derail California’s efforts to lead the global push to a high tech, clean energy economy.

While California’s Democrats and Republicans may disagree on many points, they have come together over the years to support state leadership on one issue: clean energy. Support for strong environmental regulation and an economy founded on clean technologies and sustainable energy sources is broad-based.

The bipartisan opposition to Proposition 23 is not an anomaly. Clean energy in particular has long been a priority for the state’s electorate and lawmakers. In 1974, the California Energy Commission was established by the state legislature and then-Governor Ronald Reagan. Among the Commission’s early accomplishments were setting energy efficiency benchmarks for new buildings and appliances, standards which have kept California’s per capita electricity consumption flat for 30 years, saving residents billions of dollars on their energy bills.

In subsequent decades, California built on this foundation, establishing Renewable Portfolio Standards that have minimized electricity generation from fossil fuels. Bipartisan efforts also passed bills such as SB 375 in 2008, which sets regional targets to reduce global warming pollution from cars and light trucks and make community resources and energy use more sustainable. Just this year there was strong bipartisan agreement on SB 77, a bill that funds voluntary energy retrofits to residential and commercial property, providing for a projected 10,500 jobs.

And we shouldn’t forget that bipartisan support for clean energy and environmental protection is part of our national tradition. The Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Water Act of 1972, two of the seminal legislative efforts on any subject in the past 30 years, could not have passed without the support of lawmakers from both parties.

AB 32 creates a stable policy environment that attracts billions of dollars in venture capital and cutting-edge businesses to the state and we need a reliable policy roadmap. We need a commitment to a clean environment and sustainable energy that transcends party lines. This is an issue that speaks to the American ethos – to the American Dream. It is about security, innovation, entrepreneurship, and leaving our children a world that is better than the one we inhabit.

By Ann Notthoff

Originally posted on The MarkUp.

As summer turns to fall and hopes for federal climate action fade, all eyes are turned to California – but not for the gubernatorial or senate races. Those are important surely, but something else has riveted the nation’s attention: Proposition 23. In the past week, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have published major news stories on this initiative, and the Times ran an editorial this week opposing its passage and highlighting its national significance. The Los Angeles Times has devoted regular coverage to Proposition 23 since it was slated for the November ballot.

Why all the hoopla? Because Proposition 23 is a bald-faced attempt by out-of-state oil refiners to quash AB 32, California’s landmark climate bill. In the four short years since it was enacted, AB 32 has sent a clear market signal that has attracted billions of dollars in investments, generated thousands of jobs and put California on the path of cutting our global warming pollution. George Shultz, the former Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan has joined with NRDC and others to co-chair the No on 23 campaign. He noted in this week’s New York Times editorial that AB 32 has created an “outburst” of venture capital investment and high tech innovation in the Golden State.

If we don’t stop Proposition 23, it will affect more than California. AB 32 is a game changer – and the same can be said of Proposition 23. They promise two very different futures. Implementation of AB 32 will continue California’s environmental legacy as a national and world leader in both the development of clean energy and combating global warming. It is a giant step forward. But if AB 32 is a great step forward, Proposition 23 is a Brobdingnagian step back. It keeps California stuck on fossil fuels, and assures laggard status in the race for the new technologies that will drive the world economy in the coming century. In the recent New York Times front page news story, Gene Karpinksi, the president of the League of Conservation Voters, called Proposition 23 “…by far the single most important ballot measure to date testing public support for… a clean energy economy.”

So as we get to crunch time (voting starts early on the west coast by absentee ballots arriving as early as October 4th), Californians will be voting for more than candidates and measures. Proposition 23 is a referendum on just who we are as a people – confident of today and the future or afraid to let go of the past. Make no mistake: regardless of how Californians vote, there will be winners and losers in the clean tech race. The New York Times editorial expressed this eloquently:

“Who wins if (AB 32) is repudiated? The Koch Brothers, maybe, but the biggest winners will be the Chinese, who already are moving briskly ahead in the clean technology race. And the losers? The people of California, surely. But the biggest loser will be the planet.”

By Matt Howes

Originally posted on The MarkUp.

American Crossroads is spending millions of dollars to attack clean energy reforms and the people who support them.

The motivation behind their attacks isn’t hard to find: According to Salon Magazine, American Crossroads “is getting a staggering amount of support from billionaires, several of whom made their fortune in the energy industry and live in Texas.” For example, 91% of the group’s $2.6 million in August fundraising came from just three billionaires.

One of the billionaires is Trevor Rees-Jones, an independent oil investor and founder and former chair of Chief Oil, who contributed $1 million to American Crossroads in August. Chief Oil has an abysmal environmental record, cited for 78 violations by Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection in just the first 6 months of 2010, “more than any other Marcellus shale driller in the state and with the highest ratio of violations at 3.5 per well.”

Another billionaire contributor to American Crossroads is Robert Rowling, whose fortune stems mainly from the oil business (through Tana Oil and Gas, now part of Texaco). Robert Rowling’s TRT Holdings is involved with oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico through Tana Exploration Company LLC. In 2006, Tana was fined $165,000 after a gas/condensate leak on one of its wells occurred (after safety valves were improperly bypassed).

With donors like this, it isn’t too surprising that one of American Crossroad’s priorities is blocking any legislation that places a price on carbon emissions or meaningfully addresses the very real problems of climate change.

Unfortunately, they are spreading their misleading message across the country, including going “on television with commercials in Nevada, Colorado, Missouri and Ohio and the affiliated Crossroads GPS has been running ads in Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Kentucky, California and Pennsylvania.”

More reading:
*FactCheck.org page on American Crossroads
*OpenSecrets blog on American Crossroads
*Salon: Billionaires give 91 percent of funds for Rove-tied group