Cal Poly students held a kick-off party in the University Union (UU) yesterday evening to encourage students to say no to Proposition 23. The Proposition intends to roll back Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which reduces pollution by holding polluters accountable for their actions.
Proposition 23 would stop any regulations on global warming until unemployment rates reach 5.5 percent.
The kick-off party was intended to get students excited about the “say no to Proposition 23 campaign,” run by the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG).
At the rally’s start, a few volunteers and the CALPIRG interns introduced themselves and gave their perspectives on why Proposition 23 is a bad idea.
“The campaign intends to get 5,000 pledges; 3,000 of them in the next three days,” said Lindsey Jacobson, a full-time employee at CALPIRG.
Students who attended the kick-off for the campaign were also eager to help. General engineering senior Nick Hasheider said he learned about Proposition 23 from his dad and he opposes it.
“By coming to this rally I was hoping to learn how to educate a few people so that they are better prepared and so they know more about what is going to be on our ballot,” Hasheider said.
Volunteer and environmental management and protection sophomore Yamina Pressler also got involved with Proposition 23 when CALPIRG interns talked in one of her classes.
“I don’t know why this is even on the ballot,” Pressler said. “If this passes, it will set us back at least 10 years in our race to fight global warming.”
Before the attendees of the rally split up into groups to learn more about Proposition 23, Pressler left the crowd with a few words of advice.
“We want to get all of you registered (to vote), educated (on Prop 23), and aware (of how serious this topic is),” Pressler said. “Can I get you guys to defeat Prop 23?”
While Valero and Tesoro, two Texas oil companies, want Proposition 23 to pass, Jacobson also stressed the importance of saying no to Proposition 23.
“If Proposition 23 passes, it will roll back AB 32 and dismantle all of the progress since 2006,” Jacobson said. “If it’s passed, it will be irreversible and we will never get to our state’s goal of 80 percent reduction (of pollution) by 2050.”
If the proposition passes, it could impact California’s pollution standards, which are currently regarded as the best compared to other states.
“We really need all Cal Poly students to help out in order to stop Texas oil companies from playing such a major roll in California politics,” Jacobson said.
There are several Cal Poly students already involved in this campaign.
“On campus I have 17 interns and about 50 more volunteers,” Jacobson said.
There are also a few more interns from Cuesta College. In order to gather more pledges and support from students, four booths will be set up for the next three days around campus.
“These booths will be located on Dexter Lawn, the UU, in front of the library and in Poly Canyon, so feel free to come pledge,” Jacobson said.
The passing of AB 32 will cause an economic disaster for California that will keep other states from passing such legislation, and proably do more harm for the cause than it will help the environment.
Points to ponder on AB 32 / Prop 23:
° AB 32 is not a pollution law, it is a global warming law, but it won’t have any effect on global warming.
° Prop 23, in spite of fear-mongering by opponents, does not repeal any clean-air laws. It does not increase local pollution.
° CARB over-estimated diesel emmisions by 340%. What else have they over-estimated?
° Key CARB personnel caught lying about credentials and then failing to reveal this after it is discovered internally before AB 32 passed, until after AB 32 passed. What else are they lying about and with-holding?
° Sacramento State University reports estimated cost of $3734 per year per family due strictly to this AB 32.
° CARB has admitted that California alone cannot have an impact on reducing global warming and CO2 emissions.
° US EPA acknowledges that US action alone will not impact the world CO2 levels;
° US EPA (11 July 2010) said that bills in Congress will not reduce the total use of gas and oil of 20 million gallons per day for decades.
° LAO (CA Legislative Analyst Office) stated: CA economy at large will be adversely affected by implementation of climate-related policies that are not in place elsewhere. (Letter to Dan Logue, 13 May 2010)
° Even CARB’s own economic experts have recognized the fact that jobs will be lost because of AB 32. In fact, they recommend establishing a “Worker Transition Program” to provide assistance to people who lose their jobs because of AB 32 regulations.
° AB 32 does nothing for local pollution, nor does Proposition 23 do anything to increase local pollution.
When the loudest objections to any candidacy or initiative are focused on vilifying its financial backers, this often indicates that its opponents’ arguments on its merits are weak.
Vote yes on Prop 23 and suspend AB32.
Wayne,
I am sorry but you have totally ignored the economic costs and damage to our environment. Our economic system wrongfully does not take into account externalized costs like environmental destruction, pollution, damage to health and so on.
For example, according to a report by the UN, the world’s top corporations cause $2.2 trillion in environmental damage every year.
Also, relating to prop 23, the coal industry is responsible for $62 billion in damages to the environment and costs an extra $100 billion a year in health care costs.
Why are these numbers not being used in these sorts of issues? The coal companies that funded this campaign unfairly turned this into an issue of jobs, saying that the economy will suffer and will cut jobs because these companies will no longer be able to survive now that they have to pay for their pollution. They are in fact taking out on the lower class refusing to sacrifice their greed.
This California proposition is being funded by two TEXAS based companies, Tesoro and Valero and should have NO place in California politics. It angers me that corporations are even allowed to try to repeal legislation that passed by a majority less than 5 years ago. If AB 32 is repealed it will be one of the last laws in place protecting the environment and forcing corporations to pay for their pollution.
PLEASE VOTE NO on Prop 23 on Nov 2
register by mon Oct 18!!
This is the most biased article I have ever seen the MD produce. The title alone refers to the proposition in a demeaning way, and then there is literally not a single pro-29 opinion in the article whatsoever.
I though we were supposed to get more than one side from this newspaper? I guess I’m expecting too much from the MD. This is a disgrace and deserves to be on the opinions page, not the front page.
What global warmers tend to forget is that the earth has normal cycles. Visit Yosemite Valley, it was carved by glaciers over 4,000 feet thick (nearly a mile deep). Those glaciers came and went twice with no human intervention. The current glaciers in the Sierra were created by another ice age 10,000 ago.
The earth has been colder and the earth has been warmer than the present. Why tax Californians to infinity on the say-so of people who can’t predict future weather correctly 10 days out. And, please ignore the industry of India and China.
Also, have you noticed global warmers never account the sun’s activity into the equation.
The sky is falling!
The sky is falling!
Oops, sorry
Global warming!
Global warming!
Yes, this is true Steve that the earth does has its normal cycles, however this time there is significant evidence to show that the current warming trends are due to man-made climate change. These normal trends usually take place over thousands or millions of years, but this time it is obvious that the earth has been increasingly warming since the rise of the industrial revolution.
Have you ever seen the thick layer of smog over Los Angeles, do you really believe that this is not taking a significant toll on our environment? Or rapid deforestation, mountaintop removal, or heavy toxic pollution without regard to our natural environment from which we get everything that we use?
Not only does the green economy help reduce our impact on the environment, but is the fastest growing industry, a national security issue by not depending on foreign oil, and creates SUSTAINABLE jobs for local CALIFORNIANS (by not outsourcing them to Texas and beyond…)
If you would like to use the basis of your argument on scientific facts, then where are they? No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with the current climate change model.
Us “gloabl warmers” are not trying to scare anyone into supporting our position but would like to have an intelligent factual based conversation about the human impact upon on our earth and what direction we should take in the future.
Vote YES on 23 to postpone regulations, taxes, fees, and higher costs on YOU until the UNemployment rate drops.
all you care about is you and your money
Facts face you, so you resort to a personal attack.
Did you explore my links for you?
Vote YES on 23 will postpone regulations, taxes, fees, and higher costs on YOU until the UNemployment rate drops.
Sean, those costs will apply to you when you earn your own money.