Comments on: Why It Might Actually be Good for the Planet that the US is For Sale

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 19:31:12 +0000

Well, far more than one win for the bad guys. Koch Industries funded a whole new congress to its liking, didn't it? And here's a sampling of its current lawsuits against the EPA which shows why it wants continued freedom to pollute: from Wonk Room

By: Roger Lauricella

Roger Lauricella — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 19:03:48 +0000

So I guess you would have to admit, one win for the good guys and one win for the bad guys?? And I believe the premise on the win for the “bad guys” in Prop 26 is that it will be even more difficult to institute fees in the future. Some writeups I have seen even suggest (conspiracy here)that the “bad guys” real focus was not Prop 23 but indeed Prop 26 as a more powerful means to ensure their side of the business structure remains intact. Personally, I believe the “bad guys” can and could always live with AB32, it would have just been easier (and more profitable) for them had Prop 23 passed but the real unknown secret for them is indeed Prop 26.

By: sola

sola — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:32:24 +0000

@Joe

Although I am not American, I think you are wrong when you believe that capitalists will be able to spend more.

First of all, not all capitalists have vested interest in fossil fuels. Take powerhouse like Google who actively supports clean energy.

Second, even in the fossil fuel industry, some are investing into the post-oil era (renewables). They are not yet ready so they spend on lobbying to keep the status quo. Whenever the first big fossil company finishes the development of its first viable renewable product, it will turn on the others. Then, their cartel collapses because the interest of the first company will be to destroy the others before they can effectively switch to renewables.

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:31:42 +0000

Prop 26 is pretty bad (allows polluters to keep dumping without funding future cleanup costs they cause – which will then have to be borne by general gov funds) but apparently won’t stop AB32 as those rules were set pre passage, in 2006. For other kinds of direct impact pollution though, Prop 26 was indeed a win for the bad guys.

By: Roger Lauricella

Roger Lauricella — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 18:16:36 +0000

Susan: There is some debate that you “good guys” may have missed. The premise is that the “bad guys” may have faked you out by backing ProP 23 with money but in the more sneaky sense backing Prop 26 in a firmer measure. Prop 26 may actually be more harmful to you “good guys” since any “new” fees will require a 2/3 majority in the state legislature, something doubtful to occur in any short term or long term sense. The “bad guys” may have actually won more with Prop 26 passing than had Prop 23 passed, it will interesting to see and you may want to put a magnifying glass on how things role out in terms of fees for the “bad guys”.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 05:59:44 +0000

You’re wrong that the Citizens United decision is a good thing. Capitalists will always be able to outspend and outbid democrats. A small battle was won. The war is lost. The capitalists and fascists have won.

RIP USA

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 21:37:53 +0000

Thanks, Zach. There’s hope!

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 21:03:38 +0000

nice call to action, Susan. Great points and hope we can build momentum and organized support around this issue in the next couple years.