CA Prop 7 Opposed by Strange Coalition of Energy Co.’s and Environmentalists
Usually when I see a political ad that is warning of impending doom and gloom, with an ominous background soundtrack, I become suspicious and end up voting in favor of whatever the scary voice was warning me against. I thought this would probably be the case with California Prop 7, after I saw one of those dark ads, warning against “another costly energy scheme” (especially when I noticed it was funded by big power companies, such as PG&E and Southern California Edison).
However, soon after seeing this dark ad against Prop 7, another anti-Prop 7 ad aired, except this time it had a representative of the Sierra Club urging voters to oppose Prop 7. No doom and gloom background music, just her group’s position, which is:
“Normally, Sierra Club volunteers and staff would eagerly line up behind a measure proposing that half of California’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2025. But Proposition 7, an initiative on the November ballot, doesn’t do enough to save our state and our planet from fossil fuel dependence. In fact, by cementing loopholes that would hold back the growth of the renewable energy industry, it actually could worsen our current energy situation.”
However, this is not to say that just because the Sierra Club opposes something, that it is the right choice. We don’t necessarily agree with all of their positions on environmental issues. Nonetheless, this alignment of big power and big environmental interests creates an interesting situation. We will try and explore Prop 7 more as the vote draws nearer.
- Similar Posts:
- CA Props 7 and 10 fail
- Blackle.com does not necessarily use less energy than Google.
- Initial plan released to reduce California emissions by 25% by 2020
Comments
5 Comments on CA Prop 7 Opposed by Strange Coalition of Energy Co.’s and Environmentalists
-
Marianne on
Fri, 24th Oct 2008 8:26 pm
-
forcechange on
Sun, 26th Oct 2008 11:16 am
-
Marianne on
Thu, 30th Oct 2008 4:52 pm
-
Brianna on
Fri, 31st Oct 2008 12:10 am
-
Marianne on
Fri, 31st Oct 2008 12:24 pm
There is a lot of great information out there about this proposition. I was very unclear about what to vote on this proposition at first. I figure that on paper Sierra Club is against it. But in reality they are for it. Can you make sense of this piece of an article I pulled off Sierra’s website…
“And considering how frequently the Sierra Club and others keep finding coal mining companies conducting illegal mining (see Ison Rock, VA; Jellico, TN; and Fish Trap Lake, KY) and releasing unsafe amounts of toxic selenium (see Zeb Mountain, TN; and Hobet and Fola, WV) – you can see how this is just another excuse for these companies to avoid environmental regulations.”
http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2008/10/agency-statemen.html
This confuses me of how can Sierra Club possibly be against proposition 7 if they are worried about the same things prop 7 is trying to fix. We all know that the coal industry is harming the earth and us period. This is why I’m choosing to vote yes on 7. I was also a little surprised to see that Sierra Club even agreed to throw their name down to side with PG&E on tv commercials. Is that weird to you too?
I found this really great blog that helped clear up a lot of my questions, hope it does for you too.
http://tellinit.livejournal.com/
Hi Marianne, thanks for the additional info on this. I find it very confusing myself. One thing is clear– the opponents of Prop 7 are very well funded and are squeezing every last drop out of the Sierra Club position. I just saw a huge “Sierra Club says ‘No on 7′” ad on the NYTimes.
There are some things I don’t agree with them on. Like their partnership with Clorox. PG&E = money the same way clorox does. Here is the story http://www.manufacturing.net/News-Sierra-Club-Clorox-Deal-Sparks-Feud.aspx?menuid=250.
Also, their endorsement on twisty bulbs is something that really peeves me. The main component is mercury is hazardous to our health and also to the environment because it takes years for it to bio-degrade. Sure the average twisty bulb contains only small amounts. But how about a thousand, or a hundred thousand bulbs? Advancements on reducing global warming pollution are effective but also contain their flaws. But we can all agree that they are at least a step in the right direction, much like voting Yes on prop 7.
Whoa, I had no idea about Clorox and the Sierra Club. I wonder what the back story is on that?
I see a lot of nonprofits taking corporate “sponsorships” lately. This is why I have to watch a mini-commercial from Chevron every time I turn on the Jim Lehrer Newshour. Kinda defeats the purpose of being nonprofit or public I think?
Exactly! That’s why we should vote yes on this proposition. It’s so hard to believe s group when they have been accepting endorsements left and right from big brand companies. This proposition is a step forward for our future. People always want to take action to fight global warming. Here’s your chance.
Please contribute to the discussion by leaving a comment below. No need to agree with the post or other commenters, but please be constructive and respectful.
