Switchboard, from NRDC › Annie Notthoff's Blog

California Coastal Dreaming, Take 2

2011-08-15T23:52:14Z

Annie Notthoff, California Advocacy Director, San Francisco office and Sacramento

Stillwater Cove, Monterey County

Looking out at the waves of Monterey Bay, with sand between my toes and the summer coastal fog wrapping me in its arms, I once again feel lucky to be a Californian. One big reason so many of us are happy to call this state home is the beauty and accessibility of our fabled coastline – 1,100 miles of twists and turns, sugar soft sand, crashing waves and “the greatest meeting of land and sea in the world.” For over forty years Coastal Commission director Peter Douglas has been standing guard over this coast, holding the line to protect nature, steering development carefully and making sure that everyone (not just those who own beachfront property) has a chance to get to the beach and dip their toes in the frothy water. Last week Peter announced that he will retire from the work he loves to allow him to use all his strength to fight the cancer that’s been eating away at him for the past few years. The coast of California draws big thinkers and doers from everywhere – from Henry Miller to Ansel Adams to Brian Wilson and Pamela Anderson, but no one we know has fought harder and shown greater resilience fighting for every coastal acre than Peter Douglas.

Standing up for the every coveted mile of California’s coastline is not for the faint of heart. Our coastal zone becomes a pressure zone when everyone vies for a piece of it. Since voters first passed Prop 20, the Coastal Initiative, in 1970, our State’s population has doubled to 38 million. More people, more action, same amount of coast. Peter and the Coastal Commission along with the rest of California’s world class Coastal Management Program which includes the Coastal Conservancy and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, have opened up hundreds of miles of coastline for people from all over the world to enjoy. More coast for everyone and economic productivity too. The development that has taken place is generally more tailored to the coastal environment than it would have been without the Coastal Commission.

Peter Douglas is a damn hard act to follow. He, more than any single person, has been the Commission for decades. It is hard to imagine what a shadow of itself the Commission would have been without him and the professional staff that he has fostered. Over the years he and the Commission have saved the coast from damaging proposals to build a nuclear power plant on the Santa Cruz County coast, run a toll road through a State Park in Orange County, lock up beaches in Malibu, Sonoma County, Pebble Beach and more. Peter’s commitment and passion for the coast and for the Coastal Act, and his relentless spirit in the face of regular attacks from developers, governors and state legislators, have been inspirational. It’s been a source of strength knowing that he’s been steering the ship, no matter what the storm of the moment. California’s coast is our greatest environmental and economic resource, and his life’s work has left a legacy of coastal protection that has enriched us all and will enrich our children and theirs forever.

We at NRDC have been there since the beginning to stand up for the coast. We can all thank the Commission for everything it’s accomplished – all the grindingly difficult work in the trenches for all these years. Now, with the strong program that Peter and his team have built, we’ll move on to the new coastal challenges, knowing that their foundation will serve us all well.

Don't Dim the Lights on California: Tell Congress Not to Repeal Energy Saving Lighting Standards!

2011-07-09T01:33:26Z

Annie Notthoff, California Advocacy Director, San Francisco office and Sacramento

On Monday, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on a measure to repeal federal lighting efficiency standards that benefit consumers by requiring that the common light bulbs we use in our homes use about 30% less energy. These lighting standards which are already in effect in California would be preempted by this House proposal– taking about $100 per year out of the checkbooks of every U.S. household. We need to stop them in their tracks.

True to form, California has been leading the way on clean energy. This time, California implemented federal energy standards a year early- and getting the jump on savings for California households. Once fully implemented, the standards will save Americans about $12.5 billion a year – that’s equivalent to reducing the need to build as many as 33 new power plants.

Of course, California has a long history of leading the nation in energy efficiency- and there is a reason why: these policies have brought about billions of dollars in benefits and millions of jobs. While the popularity of efficiency has ebbed and flowed in Washington, California has kept pace of energy efficiency progress-- and the benefits have kept coming.

Leading in lighting efficiency is no different- Californian are already saving money on their energy bills and Californians are at work innovating next generation, highly efficient lighting products.

Recently, a few politicians in Washington have gotten the idea that common sense energy efficiency standards for lighting make a good political football. And that the Federal energy efficiency standards passed in 2007 (with bipartisan support- and signed by President G.W. Bush), should be repealed before they can start saving any more people money. Those behind the bill falsely claim that the standard would “ban” incandescent light bulbs or force people to use CFLs- neither claim has any merit.

But they don’t stop there! The legislation would also force California to roll back its successful implementation of this standard and preempt any state action to tap the benefits of more efficient lighting. California’s success is a thorn in the side of these politicians- since we are already saving money and, remarkably, no one here seems to mind.

Congress has better things to do than keeping California from lighting the path to a more efficient economy. Californians and all Americans should tell their congressperson on Monday not to roll back efficiency standards — and not to put the lights out on California leadership.

Let the people decide

2011-03-18T22:46:06Z

Annie Notthoff, California Advocacy Director, San Francisco office and Sacramento

If you ride public transportation, have children in public school or have visited state parks recently, you know that budget cuts over the past several years have seriously harmed these and many other services on which Californians rely. This year, through a mix of additional cuts and tax extensions, Governor Brown has proposed a balanced approach to the budget that would address the state’s $26 billion shortfall and put the state on a path to fiscal stability. He has proposed a measure for the June ballot that would extend personal income, sales and vehicle license taxes at their current rates for five years. Even if this proposal makes it to the ballot and wins approval, California’s environment and public health programs are facing cuts. But without the tax extensions, the Governor and legislature will need to find even more cuts, which would likely mean closure of all of the state parks, further reductions in public transit service, threats to air and water quality, and devastating cuts to schools, universities and health care.

There are no great choices in the current budget debate. Especially in a struggling economy, California needs more investment in infrastructure, natural resources and schools, not less. But in a state that requires a 2/3 super majority vote of the legislature to approve new revenues, and with most Republican legislators signing a pledge that they will not raise taxes before they even come into office, Capitol watchers do not expect any new revenues anytime soon. Our state’s rules even require a 2/3 vote to put the governor’s proposed tax extensions before voters. To date, Republicans in both houses are withholding votes to put this choice to the people despite a new poll that shows that 61% of Californians want the chance to vote and despite broad support for the Governor’s proposal including this editorial from the San Jose Mercury News. To make matters worse, the Los Angeles Times reports that a handful of Republican senators are using the state’s fiscal crisis as leverage to weaken health, environmental and community protections that have been in place for decades. This Tom Toles cartoon in this week’s Washington Post sums up recent Republicans plans in California and nationally.

NRDC urges California’s leaders to put Governor Brown’s tax extension proposal on the ballot. Click here to send a message to your own state representatives urging them to let the people decide.

John Laird named to key environmental post in Brown administration

2011-01-07T02:09:53Z

Annie Notthoff, California Advocacy Director, San Francisco office and Sacramento

I’ve been lucky enough to know and work with John Laird ever since he was a Santa Cruz city councilman and we first joined forces with then Congressman Leon Panetta and US Senator Pete Wilson to protect California’s coastal environment and economy from offshore oil drilling proposals. Today we all have very good reasons to applaud our new Governor Jerry Brown’s appointment of former Assemblyman Laird as Secretary of Natural Resources. Simply put, John Laird bring unparalleled expertise and experience to the job of protecting the public trust of the state’s waters, public lands, and wildlife and helping chart a course to a clean energy economy here in California.

Times are tough for the Natural Resources Agency. Past staff and budget cuts have jeopardized the Agency’s ability to confront growing pressures on water, land, and wildlife from a growing population and economy. As one example, revenues from the state’s commercial fisheries have declined by more than half since 1990, the number of fishing vessels by more than 70%, and the number of fish processors by a third, costing thousands of jobs and millions of dollars to local economies.

It’s hard not to look at the state of the budget and these challenges and not conclude that California needs to find a new way forward. Laird is unusually well prepared for this challenge because he combines a deep knowledge of the issues with an expert understanding of how state budgets work (or not). In the Assembly, and as a City Councilman in Santa Cruz, Laird regularly showed his knowledge and concern for ocean and coastal protection and the environment, battling against offshore oil drilling, co-authoring AB 32—the state’s landmark clean energy law—and advancing implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act and the statewide network of marine protected areas that can help rebuild California’s fisheries. Laird also authored legislation calling upon the Ocean Protection Council to support better fisheries management through strategic grants.

Better than most anyone with his kind of environmental credentials, Laird knows the nuts and bolts of the state budget. While in the State Assembly in 2002-2008, Laird served as Chair of the Budget Committee and Special Session Committee on Budget Process. Governor Brown and Californians will benefit greatly from have Laird’s experience and expertise to call upon. And in tough budget times, the state’s natural resources will benefit from having someone representing them who knows the budget as deeply as Laird does.

Finally, John Laird is a pragmatist and problem-solver who has committed his life to public service, whether serving as a Board Member of the Santa Cruz Area Chamber of Commerce or as a member of the Cabrillo College Board of Trustees. And he knows how to laugh – a quality that is especially important in tough times.

Congratulations to John Laird for his selection, and to Governor Brown for his adding John Laird to his team.

Step by Step - from California to Cancun

2010-12-10T21:55:52Z

Annie Notthoff, California Advocacy Director, San Francisco office and Sacramento

I arrived here in Cancun earlier this week directly from the annual Green California Summit, a gathering of dozens of environmental, public health, labor, businesses, advocacy organizations and many others who are working together to address and find solutions to the key challenges facing California today. We heard from one speaker after another about the resolve to move forward with a clean energy economy to create jobs and recover our State’s economy. There were a lot of nodding heads on Monday - from environmental to labor to investors and more. It really feels like California is on the move. Once I got here, I was heartened to hear from all corners of the world, how the message the voters of our State sent, by defeating Prop 23 which would have effectively killed California’s clean energy programs, has given encouragement and hope to diplomats and activists struggling to reach agreement on moving forward together to combat climate change.

Now, it’s the last day of these official UN negotiations. I’ve been asked what it is about California that has allowed enough agreement to exist and progress to be made?

First, Californians don’t debate the science. We see the changing water cycle. We see our friends and families struggling with health problems caused by polluted air.

Second, for all its fits and starts, California has a comparatively participatory political system – people get a chance to be heard, but once they’ve been heard, the responsible officials, whether they’re elected or appointed, make decisions. They actually come to a conclusion and vote on it. The outcome never makes everyone happy, but enough people see their input in the product that they continue to work on it. Sure, we just saw how sore losers don’t always stop protesting (witness Prop 23 early promoter Rep. Tom McClintock who voted “no” on AB 32 when he was a State Senator in 2006 – at least he’s consistent), but those fights are held in the open where we have a chance to hear the arguments.

Third, we’ve collected a critical mass of people across sectors who want to make this work. Business leaders, unions, non profits, public sector, private sector – we all are on board to get something done. Success in taking concrete steps, building clean energy, retraining workers – they all add up and the more people see there’s a future in a clean economy, the more they want to be part of it and see a place for themselves.

The key is making a decision and moving forward. Step by step.

In defeat of Prop. 23, we all came together

2010-11-14T18:52:11Z

Annie Notthoff, California Advocacy Director, San Francisco office and Sacramento

As the Democratic daughter of a Republican father, I know firsthand that political parties don't matter when it comes to family. And the coalition that came together to defeat Proposition 23 in California was a bipartisan breath of fresh air.

As the pundits tallied the winners and losers, one victor stood out: the coalition that defeated Prop. 23, the initiative that would have derailed California's clean energy economy.

That's because the battle over Prop. 23 transcended politics as usual. It wasn't an issue of right or left; it wasn't about championing liberal or conservative values. It was about voting for the future or the past. It was about hope and determination against fear and retreat. Californians of all political philosophies looked at Prop. 23 and saw it for what it was: a ploy by a handful of out-of-state oil companies to crush clean energy for their own interests.

The sole intent of Prop. 23 was to stop implementation of AB 32, the landmark clean energy legislation that I worked with the Natural Resources Defense Council to help enact in 2006. California's clean energy policies are generating hundreds of thousands of jobs in California while simultaneously improving public health and reducing carbon emissions.

Prop. 23 fell by nearly a 2-to-1 ratio. Close to 5.4 million people voted against the measure – more than voted for or against any other item on the ballot. No on 23 got more votes than the winning candidates for governor or U.S. Senate. And counties that voted for Republican candidates also voted against Prop. 23, including Butte County, home to the initiative's author, Assemblyman Dan Logue from Chico. Counties such as San Bernardino, Fresno, Placer and Trinity voted for Republican candidates Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman while voting no on Prop. 23.

With California's high unemployment rate, voters expressed their frustration with government, much like was heard across the country. They tied the state Legislature's hands further on fees and funding, but they stood firm for clean air and a clean energy economy. The defeat of Prop. 23 was an undeniable victory for environmental advocates and clean energy proponents – but it was more than that.

This campaign was a public referendum on climate policy. Prop. 23 was defeated because it was clear to a wide swath of California voters that clean tech and sustainable energy – not fossil fuels – will drive the Golden State's 21st century economy. We didn't have to respond to the fear mongering of Proposition 23's backers with scary hyperbole of our own. The basic facts supported our case.

Since the passage of AB 32 in 2006, more than $9 billion in venture capital has flowed to clean-tech startups. Jobs in this sector are growing at 10 times the rate of any other industry. Companies are moving to California to participate in this bonanza.

Tesla and Toyota will soon be manufacturing electric cars here. SunPower, one of the country's largest manufacturers of solar components, soon will employ another 1,000 Californians. A few weeks ago, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar approved several large-scale solar projects on California's federal lands that will create thousands of jobs and produce enough clean electricity to supply 2 million California homes.

And this is just the beginning. Recall the Internet industry 15 years ago: that's where clean tech and sustainable energy are now, and with the defeat of Prop. 23 they have a chance to grow rather than fade on the vine. A lot of cultural and economic trends begin in California and expand eastward. The defeat of Prop. 23 will guarantee that clean energy will be part of this tradition.

I hope that this campaign will inspire the nation in another way. Proposition 23 was defeated because California voters chose pragmatism and compromise rather than inflexible ideology. California is a mixture of cultures, races and political philosophies, and we all come together when it matters for our families' health. We've done it in the past by passing the nation's most progressive air and water quality laws – regulations that served as models for other states and the federal government. We are now applying this principle of the greatest good for the greatest number to our economy. We proved this Nov. 2.

As we celebrate a victory for common sense, it's more clear than ever that working together is what makes us stronger. We need the technical expertise, brain power and capital resources of businesses, the work force of unions, the reach of diverse community groups and the wide sweep of public and private partners to make an efficient transition to the clean energy economy. And sooner or later, we will all work together for the common good. We have no other choice.

This piece first appeared as an opinion editorial in The Sacramento Bee on Sunday, Nov. 14, 2010.

Opponents of Prop 23 Forge a Mighty Coalition

2010-11-02T00:01:41Z

Annie Notthoff, California Advocacy Director, San Francisco office and Sacramento

This has been an especially contentious and polarizing election season, and little room has been left for reasoned discourse. Any common ground, it seems, has subsided beneath the waves of stridency, fear and anger. But things aren’t always as they seem: despite all the hype and hot wind, here in California this election cycle has yielded a strong and powerful coalition, one that cuts across all political and social lines.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Investor Tom Steyer and Ian Kim of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights speak out against Prop 23

I’m talking about the coalition we’ve pulled together to oppose Proposition 23, the California initiative that would derail AB 32, the state’s landmark clean energy law. Prop 23 is largely funded by two Texas oil companies, Valero Corp. and Tesoro Corp., and the Koch Brothers, a couple of billionaires based in Wichita who’ve made their money on petroleum, chemicals and fertilizers.

These oil companies touted Proposition 23 as a “job savings” bill, but it soon became clear that few people were fooled. Right, left, in the middle – Californians of all political stripes read the initiative’s fine print and realized they were being snookered. Far from enhancing employment, Proposition 23 would kill the tens of thousands of jobs already emerging in the clean tech sector: jobs in clean car manufacturing, solar and wind plant construction, energy efficient building construction and retrofitting, and sustainable fuel development and production. We’re used to looking forward in this state, not back – and the blatant attempt to substitute a clean and prosperous future for California with a polluted and impoverished past didn’t sit well with the electorate.

So a golden coalition emerged – a new face of the environmental movement – to fight Proposition 23, one that is all the stronger for its disparate parts. Mainline Republicans combined forces with influential Democrats and Independents. The leaders of the campaign against Proposition 23 are George Shultz, the former Secretary of State under George H.W. Bush, and Tom Steyer, the senior managing member of Farallon Capital Management. They’re joined by NRDC and other environmental groups that helped pass AB 32; internet giants Bill Gates of Microsoft and Sergey Brin of Google; Independent Energy Producers Association; labor unions, public health and community groups; the NAACP and the millions of average Californians who are demanding a prosperous, secure and sustainable economy for their state.

How’re we doing? Pretty good. While climate deniers rail against sensible policy across the national landscape, California will hopefully buck the trend. Our clean energy policies and AB 32 have already brought more than $9 billion in venture capital to the Golden State’s green industrial and commercial sectors since the passage of this game-changing legislation. Companies committed to clean energy are flocking to California to take advantage of the incentives we are creating. Tesla and Toyota are gearing up to manufacture state-of-the-art electric cars here. SunPower, a leading solar energy company, will soon employ more than 1,000 people in California, many of whom will work in the company’s new plant in Milpitas. A few weeks ago, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar approved construction of five large-scale solar arrays for California’s public lands, projects that will employ thousands of people and supply sustainable, pollution-free energy to two million homes.

Exciting as it is, this story isn’t just about the growing clean energy economy in California. It’s about the state pointing the way to a more civil and effective political process, one focused on solving pressing economic and social issues rather than on fomenting discord. As I noted, the coalition opposing Proposition 23 is not monolithic. We have pitched a very large tent, and we accommodate people of all political points of view. But we agree on a couple of things, and those transcend all our differences: we need to get people working, and we need to develop new sources of clean, domestic energy that support the economy and improve public health. Until we do that, everything else is a sideshow.

Defeat Dirty Energy and Protect California's Parks on November 2

2010-10-26T18:16:02Z

Annie Notthoff, California Advocacy Director, San Francisco office and Sacramento

I’m counting down the days to the November 2 election and reminding my friends and family of what is at stake regarding what’s on the ballot this year. There are several propositions on California’s ballot NRDC has taken positions on and I’ll recap two of them for you here. Here is the full list of NRDC’s positions on California’s ballot.

Oppose

Prop 23 – The Dirty Energy Proposition: This measure would stop the implementation of California’s landmark clean energy law, or AB 32. For full description see my earlier blog. We believe that this measure would repeal the law putting California at a disadvantage in spearheading the burgeoning clean energy economy. At least 45 of California’s newspapers and the New York Times have endorsed No on 23.

Support

Prop 21 – Save State Parks: This ballot measure establishes an $18 charge on annual vehicle registrations to fund maintenance and operation of California’s 278 state parks. Some funds would also go toward wildlife conservation and other natural resource protections. In exchange for the fee, the vehicle and everyone inside it gets free day use at California state parks all year long. This is a great deal for anyone who loves and uses our parks.

This measure is particularly important as parks are chronically underfunded and in danger of being closed because of the State’s budget crisis. Prop 21 would provide a stable and ongoing source of funding for the parks, while ensuring access and a major discount to anyone who visits a state park more than once a year: http://www.yesforstateparks.com/

Many of California’s parks are threatened by human-caused alteration of the climate, which is why we need to enforce our global warming laws and also protect the health of our national and state parks. NRDC just co-authored a report from the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization entitled California’s National Parks in Peril: The Threats of Climate Disruption.

As scientists continue to study the effects unchecked climate change is already having on our climate, they are finding that many of the most immediate threats are happening in some of our most beautiful and treasured areas, California’s parks, areas where more than 34 million people flock to each year and attract people to our state from around the globe.

At stake are not just the spectacular resources and values of these national parks, but an important foundation of California’s economy. The national parks in California add $1.24 billion a year to the state’s economy and support many thousand jobs in the state. These economic benefits, though, depend on the continued attractiveness to visitors of the natural and cultural resources of the parks, including those threatened by climate change. Risks to those resources are also risks to the state’s economy.

The report finds that giant sequoias are in trouble in Sequoia National Park, coastal redwoods apparently are in Redwood National Park, and Joshua trees definitely are in Joshua Tree National Park. Pine and fir trees already are dying sooner in Yosemite and Sequoia. Yosemite Falls may dry to a relative trickle more often and sooner in the year. The natural abundance and diversity of wildlife in the parks will be diminished. Beaches and wetlands at Golden Gate and Point Reyes likely will be inundated by a higher Pacific Ocean.

What the report finds is that it is possible to head off the worst of the possible effects on California's national parks by taking decisive action to reduce pollution that is changing the climate. California is also beginning to take those actions through its AB 32 – actions that will not only reduce climate change but actually strengthen the state’s clean energy economy.

We must take steps to reduce our global warming pollution and reinforce our commitment to preserving our wild and beautiful spaces, for our children and generations to come. Vote No on Prop 23 and Yes on Prop 21 to make this happen.

Texas: What Part of NO Don't You Understand?

2010-10-01T17:14:12Z

Annie Notthoff, California Advocacy Director, San Francisco office and Sacramento

The thermometer at the National Weather Service’s Los Angeles office hit 113 degrees on Monday – and then it broke.

This record-breaking heat conforms to a larger trend. A recent State of the Climate report, compiled by more than 300 scientists in 48 countries, concluded that “…global warming is undeniable.” The last 10 years have been the warmest on record. That decade beat the previous record holder: the 1990s.

The implications of this phenomenon have not gone unnoticed by the leading newspapers in the state and nation. Virtually all of California’s major papers have published editorials in the last month condemning Proposition 23, the oil industry-sponsored initiative slated for the November ballot that would kill AB 32, California’s landmark clean energy bill. The New York Times also weighed in with an editorial slamming the out-of-state financial supporters of Proposition 23.

Because AB 32 would create incentives for sustainable fuels and place reasonable limits on carbon emissions, it is being fought tooth and claw by Big Oil. Three companies in particular -- Tesoro Corp. and Valero Corp from Texas, and Wichita-based Koch Industries – have contributed millions of dollars to put Proposition 23 on the November ballot.

Along with the New York Times, the papers opposing Proposition 23 include The Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Sacramento Bee, the Fresno Bee, the San Jose Mercury News, the Contra Costa Times, the Ventura County Star, the Los Angeles Daily News and the San Luis Obispo Tribune.

The tone emanating from the editorial boards has ranged from constrained contempt to outrage. The Sacramento Bee proclaimed in its headline that the initiative “…Deserves to Go Down in Disgrace,” noting in the text:

If Proposition 23 were to pass on Nov 2, it would be a major setback to state, national and international efforts to fight global warming. It would also send a positive signal to out-of-state companies who might want to reach into California and overturn all kinds of state laws --- ranging from consumer protection to insurance regulation.

The editorial then notes that AB 32 is in fact a blueprint “for growing jobs, encouraging investment in sustainable power and energy efficiency.”

The Fresno Bee editorial criticized Tesoro, Valero and Koch for “…finding it cheaper to finance an initiative to block the law than to run cleaner operations,” adding that Valero, Tesoro, and Koch Industries “…are the major forces behind a misleading effort to convince voters that AB 32 is harming the state's economy and is a threat to economic recovery.”

The New York Times notes that Charles and David Koch, the owners of Koch Industries,

…have argued that (AB 32) will lead to higher energy costs and job losses, arguments that resonate with many voters in a state with a 12.4 percent unemployment rate. But this overlooks the enormous increase in investments in clean energy technologies – and the jobs associated with them – since the law passed…Overturning AB 32 would be another setback in the effort to fight climate change…The Kochs and their allies are wrong about the science, which shows that man-made emissions are largely responsible for global warming, and wrong about the economics.

The San Francisco Chronicle pounded the duplicitous language in Proposition 23, and asks:

Why would California want to turn back the clock on a matter of such environmental urgency and potential economic benefit to homegrown companies that are positioning themselves to lead the way on green technology? Follow the money.

The Los Angeles Times highlighted California’s leadership and that we should forge ahead with AB 32 so others will follow:

Since the late 1960s, California has led the nation in environmental regulation — and where California leads, other states and Congress almost invariably follow. That's the real reason the likes of Valero and Tesoro are so afraid of AB 32: They know it will spread. And it's why Californians must not let them succeed. With Congress currently paralyzed on climate legislation, California is the best hope for a cleaner future in the United States. Vote no on Proposition 23.

Leading news outlets get it – they understand that Proposition 23 is deceptive and has nothing to do with preserving jobs – that it will, in fact cripple the most vibrant sector in California’s economy, taking thousands of jobs in the process. Now it’s up to the voters to tell Big Oil to keep their greasy mitts off California’s energy policies.

I’d like to close with the coda to the New York Times editorial, which sums up the stakes succinctly:

Who wins if this law (AB32) is repudiated? The Koch Brothers, maybe, but the biggest winners will be the Chinese, who are already moving briskly ahead in the clean technology race. And the losers? The people of California, surely. But the biggest loser will be the planet.

Golden State Follies - Fun and Games in California's Capitol

2010-09-15T02:43:25Z

Annie Notthoff, California Advocacy Director, San Francisco office and Sacramento

California is one of only ten states that has a full time legislature and its two-year sessions wind up during the hottest time of the year when temperatures regularly exceed 100 degrees. The end of August was no exception. Our legislative session still tracks the agricultural calendar, ending in time for harvest, reflecting the agrarian economy of 19th century California. The calendar is not the only thing that needs to be modernized to reflect the way we live today. Public concern about public health and the environment is too often lost amid the lobbying forces in the halls of our State Capitol. Corporate dollars still compete to crowd out the public interest. When the clock struck twelve on the last night of session last month, there was still a lot of unfinished business. And of course there’s the matter of the State Budget that has yet to be acted on.

While there was progress on some fronts, the next governor and legislature have several important policies to get right, including:

Renewable Energy (SB 722, Simitian) - Remarkably broad agreement was reached on the last day of session, then the clock ran out. California is ready to set the most ambitious renewable energy target in the country – 33% by 2020, but a series of last minute demands eating up what little time was left, conspired to leave this major initiative incomplete for the year. Getting this law on the books is a critical building block for California’s growing clean energy economy.

What’s next: There’s talk of a special session, budget linkage and administrative action at the Air Resources Board and Public Utilities Commission, but the most enduring way to send a clear message to the market for clean energy is a law. With all the progress made, early action is quite possible.

Toxic Baby Bottles (SB 797, Pavley) – Chemical manufacturers used scare tactics and campaign dollars to keep this bill from moving to the governor’s desk. It would have banned the use of bisphenol A (BPA), which is known to cause harmful health effects, especially in children, from products like baby bottles, sippy cups, infant food and formula containers.

What’s next: The State is proceeding to list BPA on the Prop 65 list. We still need a law, possible federal action.

Plastic Bags (AB 1998, Brownley) – The American Chemistry Council invested heavily to stop a broadly supported ban on single-use plastic bags. Grocers, the public, the media, the entertainment community, public interests groups and more, along with a traveling giant turtle, agreed to a phase out of plastic bags, but corporate dollars said no.

What’s next: Local communities concerned about the waste, litter and cost of bags that get used and thrown away after just one use, too often ending up in the ocean and neighborhoods, are already taking matters in to their own hands with their own municipal regulations. Faced with a crazy quilt of local regulations, expect to see retailers back in Sacramento seeking consistent State regulation.

Water Rights Enforcement (SB 565, Pavley) – Following up on the historic package of water policy reforms enacted last fall, this bill would have given the State Water Board the authority it needs to effectively enforce existing water rights and stop illegal diversions that are alarmingly common in California, sucking water away from farms and rivers that need reliable flows. Perhaps it was “water fatigue” that led to this one getting stuck on the Assembly floor, but just making existing rules work better should not be so controversial.

What’s next: We’re evaluating how to proceed, whether that’s an administrative fix or another try on legislation, is not clear yet.

When the legislative session started, the environmental community girded to play defense against a slew of bills that would have done everything from derailing AB 32, California’s landmark clean energy bill, to gutting some of the key transparency provisions from the California Environmental Quality Act. It’s good news that none of these damaging proposals made it to the governor’s desk. At the end of session there were a few threats to do end runs around agency environmental requirements, for example, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power wanted special treatment for a coastal power plants, and there was a last minute effort to exempt new big box stores from environmental review, but heads-up work by public interest advocates stopped these cold.

Some worthy bills improving environmental management did make it to the governor’s desk and await his signature. He has until the end of September to sign them. We hope he does.

Community Investments (AB 1405, De Leon) – This is a creative approach to directing resources to neighborhoods most harmed by the pollution that contributes to global warming. It sets a community benefits fund from revenues generated by California’s climate program to mitigate health impacts in disadvantaged communities.

Clean Jobs Education (SB 675, Steinberg) – Establishes California Partnership Academies where students can learn skills for the new energy economy.

Copper Brake Pads (SB 346, Kehoe) – Residue from cars’ brake pads is a persistent pollutant in California’s bays and waters. It’s time to phase out copper from brake pads.

Smog Check (AB 2289, Eng) – Updates California Smog Check program to keep up with the times.

Increase Recycling (AB 737, Chesbro) – Broadens recycling to businesses and multi-family homes.

Carpet Recycling (AB 2398, J Perez) – Decreases waste and increases carpet recycling.

Clean Schools (SB 1157, DeSaulnier) – Integrated Pest Management at schools and childcare centers.

Fish and Game Reform (AB 2376, Huffman) – Begins the road to reform the state’s Fish and Game Department and Commission.

Better Ocean Science and Marine Spatial Planning (AB 2125, Ruskin) – Improves information available to decision makers about our oceans’ resources.

Oil Spill Prevention and Response (AB 234, Huffman) – Improves California's readiness for an offshore oil spill.

Paint Recycling (AB 1343, Huffman) – Requires paint manufacturers to develop a system to collect and process used paint.

Strong coalition efforts are needed to pass legislation in California. There’s a growing level of collaboration among public interest groups, forward thinking businesses, labor, health, faith and other groups fighting to be heard above the corporate din. We’re making steady progress, but much remains to be done.

Next up: November 2 is election day in California and absentee voters start voting in early October. Time to turn down two really bad ideas – Prop 23, the Dirty Energy Proposition and Prop 26, the Polluter Protection Act and give a thumbs up to two proposals that deserve a chance – Prop 21 to Save State Parks and Prop 25 the Budget Reform Act. More on those to come.

NRDC's Western Director appointed to Delta Stewardship Council

2010-08-05T20:51:57Z

Annie Notthoff, California Advocacy Director, San Francisco office and Sacramento

California’s water future is a little brighter now that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has appointed NRDC’s Western Regional Director Felicia Marcus to serve on the Delta Stewardship Council. This is a new Council that was created last November, in the historic package of water policy reform bills supported by a broad coalition. It is charged with developing an ambitious new plan for the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary, designed to restore this precious ecosystem, improve water supply reliability and address critical flood management challenges.

We at NRDC are particularly pleased and appreciate this appointment because NRDC worked long and hard to pass this legislation and create the Council. The Bay-Delta is the largest estuary along the entire Pacific Coast, from Tierra del Fuego to Alaska – a resource of international importance. It is also in deep trouble. Its fisheries have crashed, leading to the closure of the state’s 150 year-old salmon fishery. Climate change-driven sea level rise, land subsidence and earthquake faults put the Delta at risk of a Katrina-like disaster. What is at stake here are dozens of Delta communities, hundreds of thousands of acres of farm land, California’s iconic commercial and recreational salmon industry, economic vitality, critically important water supplies and the health of an invaluable ecosystem.

The Bay-Delta is a unique place central to the history of the Golden State. Few places face such daunting challenges. A new direction, and a new plan, is required to rise to these challenges.

NRDC recognizes the importance of finding new solutions to our water challenges. That’s why we’ve elevated protection and restoration of water resources as a new institutional priority, with a top goal of restoring the imperiled Bay-Delta estuary and meeting California’s water supply needs in an ecologically sustainable manner. We aim to show that, just as California has served as a laboratory to develop new energy and climate solutions, we can develop the next generation of water management solutions.

Felicia is a perfect fit for the new Council. In addition to being a widely respected environmental leader, she is a former regional administrator of the EPA, and former president of the Board of Public Works for the City of Los Angeles. She knows California water issues inside and out and is devoted to finding solutions that work. In the fractured world of western water policy, Felicia’s proven ability to work across traditional divides and interest groups bodes well for all of us.

NRDC's Western Director appointed to Delta Stewardship Council

2010-08-05T20:51:57Z

Annie Notthoff, California Advocacy Director, San Francisco office and Sacramento

The Bay-Delta is a unique place central to the history of the Golden State. Few places face such daunting challenges. A new direction, and a new plan, is required to rise to these challenges.

California Crossroads

2010-06-23T23:49:43Z

Annie Notthoff, California Advocacy Director, San Francisco office and Sacramento

The fight to protect California’s environment entered a new round yesterday when Secretary of State Deborah Bowen announced that the backers of the initiative to repeal our landmark law to combat global warming, AB 32, had qualified their dirty energy proposition for the November ballot. And we, along with a big coalition are ready to fight and defeat their sneaky initiative. Today in San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom and local environmental leaders lambasted this deceptive initiative that would roll back AB 32 which has put California on the cutting edge of the 21 Century’s emerging green economy, clean tech research, and the development of carbon-neutral fuel sources.

The event was held at Pier 7 on the city’s embarcadero, overlooking the bay that is the largest and most biologically productive estuary on the West Coast. It was here that the tanker Cosco Buscan ran aground in 2007, spilling more than 53,000 gallons of heavy bunker oil, killing wildlife and providing a harbinger of the great environmental tragedy now unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico where the spill gushes the equivalent of the Cosco Buscan spill every four hours.

That’s what our addiction to oil leads to. Now Texas oil companies are asking California voters to for yet another bailout, freeze state clean energy and climate laws and roll back clean air standards.

The oil companies have chosen California as their battleground to crush the progress the State’s made in moving away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy. Californians will be their Waterloo by defeating their invidious proposition. They are a formidable foe, already spending more than $3 million to promote their measure. Eighty percent of the campaign’s money has come from oil companies, with 78 percent contributed by out-of-state donors.

But we can and we must defeat them. AB 32 sets a new global standard for the next economy – a sustainable economy, one that will ensure family prosperity, national security and environmental stability. AB 32 already has created thousands of clean energy jobs in California; the sustainable energy sector is growing 10 times faster than any other segment of our economy.

We can’t let Texas oil destroy California’s future simply for the purpose of stuffing more cash into their already bulging coffers. Please: join our big and growing team of citizens to fight the fossil fuel plutocrats who are trying to take us back to the dirty days. Tell your friends, share your time and creativity. Support our efforts at http://www.stopdirtyenergyprop.com. Stay tuned for lots more on this topic – it’s going to be a long hot summer.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words - the Oil Coated Gulf

2010-06-14T17:02:57Z

Annie Notthoff, California Advocacy Director, San Francisco office and Sacramento

As the Gulf of Mexico disaster continues to unfold, the oily images that we keep seeing are both horrifying and a harbinger of any future that remains yoked to fossil fuels. The photos and videos now coming out of the Gulf mark the greatest environmental disaster in this country’s history, and they cannot – they must not—be ignored.

These pictures aren’t worth a mere thousand words. They are worth volumes; they are archival in their significance. Yet words, too, have great power – sometimes in ways that are not intended. With this in mind, NRDC’s media team has produced a powerful video clip that combines some of the spill’s most arresting images with quotes from BP’s CEO Tony Hayward. The clip is set to Skeeter Davis’ haunting and bittersweet song, “The End of the World.”

The juxtaposition of the spill’s apocalyptic images– dead sea turtles, marine birds covered with oil, demoralized fishermen and disaster relief workers – with Howard’s clueless observations show just how far astray our addition to oil has taken us. As the oil spews at the rate of thousands of barrels a day, Howard blandly asserts that “…almost nothing has escaped...” The impact of the disaster, he claims, is “…likely to have been very, very low.” Later, Howard implies reaction to the spill is excessive because “…The amount of the volume of oil and dispersant…is tiny in relation to the total volume of (the Gulf’s) water…” And despite hard evidence to the contrary, Howard insists the “…oil is on the surface -- there aren’t any (underwater) plumes…”

And in perhaps his most insensitive statement, Howard demonstrates his concern over the damage BP has wrought: “…There’s no one who wants this over more than I do. I’d like my life back…”

Welcome to the club, Tony – we’d all like our lives back, especially those folks who live and work along the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. While the resolution of the Gulf disaster remains wholly unclear, we can still do a great deal to avoid similar catastrophes in the coming years and decades. Specifically, Congress can pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill by the end of the summer. And in California, we can demand full implementation of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 will stimulate research and development in clean tech and alternative fuels while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions; it points the way to a prosperous economy and environmental security.

Finally, we can do something to help the communities of the Gulf by contributing to NRDC’s Gulf Coast Recovery Fund. One hundred percent of the proceeds will be devoted to providing aid and support to the human beings and wildlife devastated by the spill.

The Gulf Coast oil disaster – making sure we protect the Pacific coast

2010-05-12T21:12:42Z

Annie Notthoff, California Advocacy Director, San Francisco office and Sacramento

The catastrophe unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico puts a grim point on the acknowledgement that we need to wean ourselves from oil and develop cleaner forms of energy. This is particularly evident today in Washington, where Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) and 19 co-sponsors have introduced a bill that will permanently ban new offshore oil and gas drilling off the California, Oregon and Washington coasts.

This makes good sense for a lot of reasons. The West Coast Ocean Protection Act of 2010 renews a longstanding moratorium that Congress let lapse during the Bush Administration. The State of California has wisely protected its near shore waters (0-3 miles offshore) from the inherent dangers of offshore for decades and federal waters (3-200 miles offshore) in resource sensitive regions like the Pacific have enjoyed similar protection since 1984. These moves reflect longstanding bipartisan opposition to new offshore oil development in this region.

This new bill by California’s Congressional leaders sets us on a path to a future that is cleaner, greener and more economically secure. The marine ecosystems of the West Coast are some of the richest on the planet, and support fishing and tourist economies that depend on clean healthy oceans. It doesn’t make any sense to sacrifice these priceless and sustainable natural resources for a short term energy fix.

Before this Gulf coast oil disaster, the Gulf of Mexico produced billions of dollars in annual seafood revenues -- $2.4 billion in Louisiana waters alone. Now, all those fisheries – crab, shrimp, oysters, a vast array of finfish species – are closed, and no one has any idea when they’ll open again. Or even if they’ll open again – some species may never recover sufficiently to allow commercial harvests. Meanwhile, the thousands of working families who derived their livelihoods from the Gulf –commercial fishers, processors, recreational angling guides, charter boat skippers, local seafood restaurants, the people who cooked and waited tables in those restaurants, motel and hotel owners – are left holding the bag. Many of them are facing financial ruin.

Rep. Garamendi’s bill will protect California and the west coast from a similar scenario. The hype emanating from BP’s public relations machine notwithstanding, the Gulf spill is not an anomaly. It is a predictable consequence of our nation’s oil dependence. Offshore drilling technology is anything but foolproof, and human beings are not infallible. Accidents happen and in the marine environment, the consequences are huge. We’re seeing it in the Gulf of Mexico now – and we saw it off California in 1969. In that year, a blow-out on a rig in the Santa Barbara Channel spewed more than three million gallons of crude on local beaches before it was capped. The West Coast Ocean Protection Act will ensure the safety and continued productivity of our offshore waters.

(Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/32520523@N04/3551056792/)

Rep. Garamendi’s bill also buttresses California’s leadership role in the clean tech energy sector. We already have landmark legislation in California that is moving us away from fossil fuels, generating billions of dollars in business in alternative fuel research and development and addressing greenhouse gas emissions. This is the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32. Unfortunately, full implementation of AB 32 is threatened by the Dirty Energy Proposition, a bad idea funded by a group of Texas oil refiners. Their false initiative has nothing to do with jobs and everything to do with oil companies hanging on to their old ways with all they’ve got. If this Trojan horse makes it to the November ballot and is passed, it will scotch California’s thriving clean tech industry, dry up the billions of dollars in venture capital we are now receiving and hobble us with a dirty, antiquated oil-based economy. We don’t need it.

What we do need is protection for our fertile Pacific waters and pass a federal climate change bill that puts a price on carbon, lowers our demand for oil and reduces our deadly addiction to oil. We need Congress to pass a bill that affirms the goals of AB 32 as a national priority.

It’s great to see that our western Congressional members have their priorities straight and are leading to protect our environment, our jobs, and our futures.