Advertise Here
Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.
Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.
Our latest headlines
- BREAKING NEWS: Senate Fails To Pass Compromise California Budget With All 15 Republicans Voting No
- Proposition 11’s Redistricting Reform and the Kind of Refreshing Change Obama Called on Americans to Demand
- Voting Rights For All: Putting It to Work in California
- Still Hearing Obama’s Speech--And Surprise -- It’s McCain/Palin
- California Senate Slated to Vote This Morning on Version of Governor's August Budget Proposal
- The Mile-High Milestone
- A Modest Proposal for the LPGA
About Us
The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.
About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.
Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.
Sponsors
President Clinton: Why I Support Proposition 87 and Why the Oil Companies are Wrong--The Complete Speech Delivered at UCLA

First-- thank you. Let me say, first of all,I would like to thank Madam President for that great introduction.
I want to thank you all for coming, thank my long time friend, Steve Bing, for his leadership role in this, and Chad Griffin for heading this campaign. I love this campus and I'm glad to be back here.
California is being given an opportunity and an obligation to do something remarkable to save the planet and improve our national security and create the next generation of good jobs for the American people. That's what Prop 87 represents to me. The Apollo program would never have gotten off the ground if it hadn't been for California. The personal computer was born here. I could give example after example after example after example where you have always led the way.
But California, because so many people want to live here, because it is a picture of 21st century America, it is also going to have always more challenges than other places. You're dangerously dependent on unstable sources of oil, your air is still too polluted, with all the risks that carries, and there is a lot of money here, and too much of it is being directed to trying to beat Prop 87.
The great French writer Victor Hugo once wrote a line that Martin Luther King, when I was your age, quoted over and over and over again: There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come. It is also true, however, that there is nothing so dangerous as an idea whose time has come and gone but there is still a lot of money and power behind it and people don't want to let go. We have got to let go of the greenhouse gas emitting dependence on oil and coal and
(inaudible) economy.
Prop 87 will move California toward energy independence with cleaner fuels, with wind and solar power. There are people who don't believe you can do it. I do. Look at Brazil. Don't you think you can do it if they did it? They run their cars on ethanol.
Soon every single car there will have to be able to run 100 percent on ethanol or 50/50 or on gasoline. In that never-to-come day when it's cheap again, and the ethanol is one-third cheaper than gasoline, this will save the people of California money, not cost them money. I think it's a pretty good investment for just one vote.
Now, I know the oil companies have trotted out some economists in their ads. But let me ask you something: If they really thought you were going to pay for this, would they be spending all that money trying to convince you to vote against it? You need to know that California is the only state in America without any kind of extraction fee on its natural resources on oil.
I come from a state, Arkansas, where we had an oil and gas severance tax. It never makes any difference in the price. It's set in the market. There are plenty of states with very, very high severance taxes, much higher than Prop 87 would impose here, that have less expensive gasoline. Believe me, this -- all this campaign is a ruse. This is designed to slow down America's transformation to a clean, independent, energy economy.
And I want you to think about it, all of you students, not just from the point of view of climate change, but also our national security. Aren't you tired of financing both ends of the war on terror? And think about -- think about it from the point of view of our economic security. We are now in a period for the first time ever when we've had five years of economic growth, a 40-year high in corporate profits, five years of increasing worker productivity. So the people who are working for us are doing a better job every year, and yet wages are stagnant, poverty is going up among the working poor, and the people without health insurance that are working and their children are increasing.
Now, why is that? That is because we have not found this generation's new jobs. In my second term, for the first time in 20 years, wages were rising for a simple reason: Information technology exploded from the province of video games and dot-com companies into every aspect of the American economy and it created a huge number of new jobs everywhere. They were good-paying jobs and they lifted the wage levels of all Americans.
If you want to have an open economy, if you want us to continue to go to all parts of the world, if you want us to help lift up poor countries so they are working and still have good jobs when you finish at UCLA, when your counterparts are going into the work force all across this country, then every five to eight years we have to have a source of new jobs. This is a lay down. This will help to create the kind of jobs that will keep America strong and able to lead the word to peace and prosperity and security.
When I was here at UCLA just a couple of weeks ago to announce a partnership between my foundation and now 32 of the 40 biggest cities in the world including Los Angeles -- soon to be 36 of them -- to drastically lower greenhouse gas emissions in cities. And the commitment that I made when I went to work for this all over the world, on every continent, embracing all cultures, all religions, all racial and ethnic groups is that we would do this. In a way, that would improve the security, the sustainability, and the economic well-being of every single one of these cities on every continent on earth. That is what California can lead the way in doing.
And I cannot tell you how strongly I feel about this. The argument that this is going to raise your gas prices is just bogus. It's not so. All my public career before I become president -- and I'll say it again -- was spent in a state that used to have a lot of oil, still has a lot of natural gas. Nobody in the whole wide world ever thought that measly little extraction tax we had had anything to do with the price people paid for their natural gas or their gasoline. No one. The only way they can even put these ads up and make this argument is that you never had it, so you don't know. Take it from me. I've been there. I lived in a place that had it. It will not make a difference to the price, but it will make all the difference in your future. All the difference in your future.
With one vote you can make California America's leader in alternative fuels. I was just in upstate New York with Hillary the other day and we went into -- we went -- we went to a project supported by the New York State Environmental and Forestry University, the branch in northern New York. They are growing a fast-growing brand of willow tree that can be turned into biofuels that has a conversion ratio of 4 gallons of biofuels to one gallon of gasoline. These things are not expensive. We have this kind of biomass to make cellulosic ethanol all over America. It would increase income in rural America. It would increase income in rural California. It would stabilize the environment and improve our national security. I could give you example after example after example.
You see that windmill there? I was just in Denmark. Now listen to this: 20 percent of their electricity is generated from wind. In the last several years they have increased their economic output by 50 percent in Denmark. The economy had grown 50 percent in the last few years. Do you know how much the energy use has grown? Zero, nada, not a bit. Conservation, clean fuels, wind and solar -- we can change the world and give you the future you deserve. And anybody who doesn't understand the calamitous potential of climate change didn't see Al Gore's movie and hasn't looked at the facts.
Last year at the Annual Global Initiative I have at the beginning of the UN where we ask people to come and make contributions to fight climate change, to empower people to work their way out of poverty, to bridge the religious divides around the world, and deal with health crisis -- the last year the biggestcommitment that was made as made by Swiss Re, big European re-insurance company. They actually -- they insure insurance companies. So if insurance companies are tanking, they have their own insurance policies in case their losses exceed a certain amount, and they don't have enough money, to avoid bankruptcy.
Swiss Re made the biggest commitment,$400 million, to clean energy. Why? Because natural disasters caused by the disturbance of the weather in the last decade were triple what they had ever been for insurance losses. And that's only in the wealthy countries. In the poorer countries, most people aren't insured at all.
This is coming and we need to be ahead of the curve. So I know maybe I'm preaching to the saved here today, as we say at home, but you need to go out and talk to people about this. You have an election soon, you need a high turn out. You can't let people be afraid. Tell them there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come, and nothing more damaging than an idea whose time has come and gone and people won't let go of it. Let go of the old energy economy.
Let go of the idea that you can't be rich without polluting the atmosphere. Let go.
I just want to make one other point that I think is really important, especially in California. There is another reason you should do this.There is a reason the American Lung Association and the Nurses Association and all the asthma and lung cancer experts are for Prop 87. You got an air quality problem here. It is the inevitable byproduct of your success as a place where people want to live combined with the way we all use energy. But it's given you the worst air quality in the country. At the age of two months babies in Los Angeles have already breathed enough toxins to reach the EPA's lifetime limit for cancer risk from dirty air. 95 percent of the people in California live in areas that don't meet federal and state standards.
What does that mean in the real lives of people? It means more asthma, more bronchitis, more lung cancer. It means heart disease, lung disease, and premature death. It means 21 and a half billion dollars in extra health care costs. It means too many young Californian's will be unable to live out the full lives that they deserve to have.
There are a lot of children that I met with their families earlier today who have asthma, like thousands of other children in California. They are paying the price for our addiction to oil, paying the price for America's lack of an energy policy, paying the price for record profits and under-investment by the oil companies in clean, independent energy. We owe it to them to take the first.
I've spent a lot of time -- now that I've reached a certain age and I have a grown child and have been in public life a long time, I spent a lot of time over the years with children with asthma. I'm tired of seeing kids gasp for breath, wondering if they will able to run outside on the play yard, wondering if they will be able to fulfill dreams of playing a sport, or riding a horse, or running a race, or just having a normal life. I don't believe the people who are against this proposition want those kids to suffer, it's just they give some other excuse so they can keep on doing what they have been doing. Just think what would have happened if the companies that have spent $100 million to beat this proposition had instead spent $100 million to become comprehensive energy companies instead of oil companies. What if there is a way for them to increase, not decrease, their profits? None of us are against them. I'd love to be an oil company executive today. I'd build it into the best energy company in the world. We would be investing in solar, we would be investing in wind, we would be investing in conservation, we would be investing in clean fuels. That's the answer to the oil companies: Make more money by helping to pave the way to the future, not hold on to an untenable, unsustainable, and dangerous past.
You need to go out and share this with other people who didn't come here. I hear some of you stayed up all night to get a place here today. Well, since you exerted that effort, surely you can exert a little more between now and election day to talk to the people who weren't here, who don't understand it's important enough to stay up all night for, who don't understand that the one night you stayed up all night could save you months or even years on your lives and the lives of the people you love and care for and want to build a future with, if you take the first step.
California has always led the way. It was the first state in America that had no racial group in the majority, where we were all in it together and knew it. It's a place where people reach across all their religious and cultural lines, it's a place full of positive interdependence. This crowd is a model for how I sorely wish the world would work. If you -- a place where the people believe that you can be proud of what is special about you and still respect what is different about someone else, a place where people believe that you really can find a way to respect your differences and still build a harmonious community.
You can't do any of that -- any of that -- unless we change the most basic thing about how we live and work together, where we get our energy, and how we use it. There is nothing more important.
Think of the children with asthma. Think of the instability and the impotence you feel knowing that every day we have to have a lifeline from places half a world away that could cut us off in a minute, or where the money we send might be diverted to destructive purposes. Think of how awful it is to turn out generation after generation of young people going into an economy that has high growth and flat wages and increasing poverty among working people. Think of how you could change it all, how you could make the air clean for the children, the economy secure and strong, the nation more safe from assault, and -- most important of all -- the planet is still here in a usable, sustainable, harmonious way for your own children and grandchildren.
All of that is at stake. America has to change. But you can lead the way. The charges against Prop 87 are not true, but the potential of it is staggering. Do what you have always done, claim the future.
Thank you and God bless you.
Comments
Why should Republicans vote for Prop 87?
1. Putting America First. Prop 87 will assist Americans to shift away from Middle Eastern Oil (which funds terrorism), toward energy from American sunshine, wind, and crops. America's national interest should never be compromised out of fear of retaliation from those who own the oil that our economy is currently addicted to. Nor should one American patriot lose his or her life stablizing a country that happens to have oil.
2. Ending Corporate Welfare. Prop 87 will stop the free ride that Big Oil has been enjoying at our expense. Why does Big Oil get to take the resources of the Californian people for free and sell it back at to them at whatever the market will bear? As Republicans are proud to declare: "There is no such thing as a free lunch."
3. Protecting the Kids. Prop 87 will assist in cleaning up the air for future Republican voters. Kids of Republicans suffer from asthma too.
4. Building a Stronger Economy. Prop 87 will create jobs in the energy sector (which are not out sourced to the third world), reduce the costs of energy throughout the economy (by lessening dependence on a dwindling scarce resource - "as supply goes down, price goes . . .), and create valuable technology that can be exported to China and India. America WILL have to move away from oil. It will either import the necessary technology (as it does with the Prius) from other nations or create it now, lead the world, and export this vaulable technology to the world.
Republicans need no longer protect Big Oil and its friends. Big Oil is big enough to take care of itself. It is time to put aside ideological bigotry aside and think about the issues. Whether Republican, Democrat or Independent, Prop 87 is a step in the right direction.
Posted by: Peter at October 14, 2006 07:34 PM
The war in Iraq is a government subsidy of oil production at about $300 billion a year. California is at least 10 percent of the country so California taxpayers are arguably kicking in a $30 billion subsidy for the war based on bogus excuses.
Also big oil wants a deal with Iraq called a PSA or Profit Sharing Agreement. Isn't that what the people of California deserve as well through 87? While thay are fighting us on this here they are pushing for a PSA in Iraq,on top of their war/ taxpayer subsidy. Only a 'embedded media'couldn't see this with a little digging.
I worked in an environmental justice campaign against Chevron where they stubbornly refused to negotiate with people who were 'down wind' from their refinery in Richmond, people with the highest cancer rate in the Bay Area. At the same time they were giving seminars to other corporations on how they could kiss Chineese officials butt and do business and export their workforce to China.They had what they called 37 techniques in dealing with the Chinesse government.
Chevron also avoids local property taxes in Richmond where if taxed fairly would generate enough money to have the best schools in the state. Instead the streets are flowing with blood while the average tax payer is footing the bill for the prisioners Chevron is too cheap to educate.
Posted by: craig at October 15, 2006 08:21 AM
Peter, ehy do you open your comment with what republicans should do and not republicans and democrats? If it is a good idea shouldn't everyone be on the same sheet?
Big oil isn't only a republican "problem". Look at all the campaign donations going to our own democrats in the California legislature. Among all the gaming casinos, pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, you will fine railroads, trucking concerns, and you guessed it, big oil looking for breaks in pollution standards and taxes.
Posted by: Sid at October 15, 2006 09:07 AM
Prop 87 is vital. I'll admit that at one time I was one of those people going around telling everyone that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than what is created. I must have heard that claim on NPR or something. So when a friend of mine asked me to support my claim, I went to www.NPR.org and did a search. I was embarassed at what I found.
I was wrong. In fact, my own alma mater, The University of California at Berkeley, has released a study saying not only is corn ethanol a significant net energy gain, but cellulosic ethanol is a HUGE net energy gain. ...and of course, the green house gas emissions are minimal compared with fossil fuels. If the study was conducted by the corn lobby or ADM, then I would be skeptical. However, there is no way Berekley is ever going to be biased towards special interest or anti-environmental groups. So now I'm joining Vinod and trying to save the environment, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and maybe get rich at the same time. When I went to www.InvestInCellulosicEthanol.com I was shocked at how many companies are on the brink of a commercial scale cellulose ethanol plant. SunOpta seems very promissing. In fact, two months ago I bought a few shares and I am already up 20%. Happy investing!
Posted by: Bonnie McFarand at October 15, 2006 03:56 PM
VOTE NO on Prop.87
The $0.51 per gal. corporate welfare to the oil refiners for adding 5.6% ethanol to California gas is about $500,000,000.00 per year.
The ethanol may add over $1.00 per gal. to the gas profit in California.
That may be about $100 billion in oil profit from California motorists.
The science is interesting but so is the money.
A $4 billion Prop. 87 oil tax may add $40 billion in oil profit.
Charlie Peters
(510) 537-1796
Clean Air Performance Professionals
Posted by: Charlie Peters at October 16, 2006 09:54 PM
I think that Peter's point was that sustainability should no longer be a partisan issue. If, in the current climate, the Democrats do not have the courage to seize the opportunity to take the lead on national security, economic prosperity, fiscal responsibility and environmental rejuvination, through a common-sense energy policy, then I will be the first to bow down to my corporate masters by purchasing the biggest terror-fundraising machine that will fit on the road, slapping a "Support the Troops" sticker on the back and doing my patriotic bit to drive the human race into extinction. Yeehahhh!!
Posted by: Brad at October 18, 2006 11:30 PM
I would be most interested in knowing which corporations are funding the "VOTE NO ON PROP 87" campaign. It appears to be a huge investment in TV, radio, print ads, telephone calls and endorsements. Is skywriting in their budget? Any oil corporations? If yes, please identify and publish! Or ia ilt possible in these times to hide this information from voters?
Posted by: john thomsen at October 23, 2006 04:26 PM
Jon: Just go to the Secretary of State's website. you will see that just about all the money against this proposition came from oil companies in large amounts. Paste: this in your browser http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1282414&session=2005&view=received and you will be taken there.
Fortunately, under the Political Reform Act, we can see at the Secretary of State's office all contributions in excess of $5,000 and they can't be hidden--at least for long--from public view.
FDR
Posted by: Frank D. Russo at October 23, 2006 04:43 PM
Top Schwarzenegger aide, lawmakers travel to South America
KESQ News Channel 3, (AP), Saturday, November 11, 2006
SACRAMENTO Governor Schwarzenegger's chief of staff and a bipartisan delegation of state lawmakers have left on a 12-day trip to South America to study alternative-energy technologies.
Chief of Staff Susan Kennedy, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and high-ranking members of both the Senate and Assembly are being accompanied by representatives of energy companies and others with lobbying interests in Sacramento.
The trip will take the delegation to Argentina, Brazil and Chile.
Officials say the mission is designed to give lawmakers a lesson in ethanol production and other clean-energy technologies.
The trip was organized and funded by the California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy.
On the Net:
California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy, http://www.cfee.net/
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=5665181&nav=9qrx
Posted by: Charlie Peters at November 13, 2006 08:10 AM
Post a comment
Get Email Updates
Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.
© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.
RSS 