Maybe gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman got tired of being asked tough questions by right-wing radio hosts John and Ken and decided, in an unscripted moment, to give a noncommittal answer on this subject, just to shut them up. Or maybe, since she called herself an environmentalist this week, she thought she’d better back up the claim by saying she would likely vote “No” on the deceptive ballot measure — funded by Texas oil companies — to kill California’s landmark climate law. According to KQED’s Climate Watch blog:
After weeks of steadfastly refusing to take a stand one way or the other on the ballot measure to freeze the state’s climate law known as AB 32, Whitman conceded on a radio broadcast that “In all likelihood I will vote ‘No’ on Prop 23″… Though she prefaced her remark by saying she had not made her “final decision” on the matter, if her position holds, it means that both she and her Democratic opponent, Jerry Brown, oppose the measure. Brown recently told an editorial board at The San Jose Mercury-News that the candidates’ respective positions on AB 32 and Prop 23 was “the defining difference” between the two contenders.
Both candidates Whitman and Brown may vote no on Prop 23, but their positions on AB 32 remain very much at odds. Considering his strong defense of AB 32 and the fact that his primary job-creation plan involves investing in renewable energy technology in California (which he says will create half a million jobs), Brown may very well be right in saying his and Whitman’s positions on California’s leadership on clean tech and climate change solutions is the defining difference between them.
Let’s be clear: Whitman stands by her initial call for a year-long moratorium on AB 32, the landmark climate law that is driving billions of dollars of investment in clean technology in California. In fact, she pointed out in the yesterday’s radio interview that the governor has the power to suspend the law for up to three years and called that ability a “safety valve.”
Three years, Meg? Talk about investor uncertainty. You couldn’t come up with a better strategy of scaring off venture capital in enterprising, job-creating California clean tech businesses… With the exception of actually passing Prop 23 and repealing AB 32 altogether.
Whitman went on to say that AB 32 is “a job killer in many industries” and continued: “What we need to do, one percent of all jobs in California today are green jobs, so let’s not kill a whole bunch of other jobs in other industries to support one industry.”
The “one percent” factoid Whitman refers to deliberately obscures the fact that clean technology jobs have grown exponentially more than any other sector and remains the bright spot in California’s economy. A December 2009 study from the nonpartisan Next 10 “determined that the number of green companies surged 45% from 1995 to 2008, and total jobs in areas such as energy efficiency, renewable fuels and clean tech grew 36%. During the same period general employment in the state expanded just 13%.” In addition, billions of dollars of investment, including $1.5 billion in the second quarter of 2010 (most of it in California) mean that many more green jobs are on the horizon.
If Whitman wants to earn the label of environmentalist, she’s going to have to do better than just maybe, possibly vote no on the Dirty Energy Proposition in November. She’s going to have to stop pandering to the right wing with noncommittal statements about human-caused climate change (remember “I’m not a scientist”?), abandon the plan for a moratorium, and embrace the potential of AB 32 to help move California forward in creating good, sustainable jobs that can’t be outsourced, moving away from polluting fossil fuels, and leading the nation on climate change solutions.
Cross-posted from the “Build a Greener Governor” campaign Web site.
