PROPOSITION 1A

PROPOSITION 1A

In an ideal world, instead of a high-speed rail system, I would rather see airport and road capacity held constant and wait for congestion and increased oil prices to reduce demand for longer-distance intercity travel. We have abused cheap long-distance travel to the detriment of our health and environment, and it should be curtailed. However, purposely constraining road and airport capacity is politically unpalatable and unlikely. Thus, given the dangers of global warming, a high-speed rail system makes some sense. At present, I cautiously support Prop 1A despite all its flaws because I think it would eventually lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions relative to a scenario where no high-speed rail system is built (since roads and airports would likely see relatively greater expansion). However, its flaws are serious and there are many unanswered questions – before making a voting decision, these warrant your scrutiny.

Prop 1A Overview
Prop 1A would authorize the sale of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds. Of that, $9 billion would be available for a high-speed passenger train system, and primarily for the planning and construction of the SF-LA corridor. Before the California High Speed Rail Authority could use any of the funds, however, the legislature would have make specific appropriations, conditional on CHSRA’s submission of funding plans. CHSRA’s current plans for the SF-LA corridor include ten stops between the end-points, with an estimated total travel time of 2 hours 38 minutes (and a train speed of up to 220 mph). For maps of the proposed routes and more: CHSRA website.

My Thoughts
Funding:
By any estimate, the high-speed rail system would be very expensive. Excluding interest on bond debt, CHSRA estimates it would cost $45 billion (2006$) to construct the entire system and over $1 billion annually to operate it. One report, funded by Prop 1A opponents, estimates much higher costs. Constructing the SF-LA corridor by itself would be cheaper, but Prop 1A funds would still not even cover half the costs. So, where do the other funds come from?

CHSRA assumes large amounts of federal funding ($10-12 billion), private investment (~$5 billion) and local government cost-sharing. However, federal funding is not guaranteed and certainly not in the amount of $10-12 billion. Obtaining federal funding for transit, and especially rail, is very competitive. In addition, the potentially available pots of money (e.g. those provided in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act) are not that large. Furthermore, private investment is unlikely until additional funding on top of Prop 1A is procured.

Will there be enough funding to complete the rail system, or even just the SF-LA corridor? The funding uncertainty and potential local opposition to the train system have caused some to contend it will never be built. Given the great political will behind the project, though, I think at least the SF-LA corridor will get built. However, it could take a very long time – and there are no guarantees. In addition, it is unlikely that operating costs and maintenance would ever be fully covered by user fees as CHSRA suggests, thus necessitating perennial government subsidies.

Ridership:
Even if the high-speed rail system does get fully funded, what would train ridership be and how much of it would be diverted versus induced? To reduce greenhouse gas and other emissions, the system would need to divert existing demand for intercity car and plane travel; inducing new demand for intercity travel would have the opposite effect.

Ridership levels are not easy to measure, particularly in the case of high-speed rail systems – since there are so few worldwide, making comparisons difficult. CHSRA estimates that 2020 ridership would be 32 million, with 6% coming from induced demand and 87% from diverted air and auto trips. However, 6% induced demand strikes me as awfully low.

For one, the large number of stations between LA and SF, some in much cheaper housing markets, will likely induce people to move and become long-distance commuters. Having that many stations also leads to me question the ability of the trains to make the SF-LA trip in 2 hours 38 minutes, which would require a 165 mph average speed. With greater delays, the number and proportion of trips diverted to the rail system would decrease.

Further, without the rail system, demand for intercity travel might decline on its own as oil prices and congestion increase – with demand diverted into telecommuting and longer trip stays. The rail system could prevent that demand reduction by providing another transport alternative. Still, with no rail system (and even with), road and airport capacity would likely be expanded, which would also impede an otherwise natural decrease in intercity travel.

I’m confident a high-speed rail system would divert some plane and auto trips and lead to eventual decreases in greenhouse gas emissions caused by intercity travel (after the emissions caused by the project’s construction are equalized) – I just don’t know by how much and how long it would take.

Environmental Impacts:
The proposed high-speed rail system would have negative environmental impacts. For instance, the system is expected to induce new growth around its stations, especially in the Central Valley (e.g. Fresno, Visalia, Bakersfield). It’s true that California is growing anyways, but there’s no need to further incentivize growth, especially in the form of long-distance commuters seeking cheap housing (and creating induced train system demand). CHSRA’s current plan to place the system stations in existing downtown areas is an important but insufficient counter-sprawl measure.

The rail system would also directly create environmental problems. For one, CHSRA’s preferred SF-LA route would bisect a huge swath of wetlands north of Los Banos, including the Grasslands Ecological Area, the “largest contiguous area of wetlands” in California, home to numerous rare and endangered species of plants and a wintering area for over a million birds along the Pacific Flyway.

In Sum
While I currently support Prop 1A, the benefits and feasibility of CHSRA's proposed high-speed rail system are so unclear that I may change my mind. Because of these uncertainties, I encourage you not just take someone's word for or against the proposal. Look over the questions raised and make your own judgment call.

Prop 1A Supporters/Opponents
Proponents include numerous environmental organizations, the California Democratic Party, numerous local governments and elected officials, and others.

Opponents include the Reason Foundation, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, some elected officials, and others.

YES ON PROPOSITION 2

Your ballot will refer to Proposition 2 as “Standards For Confining Farm Animals” rather than as “The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act,” which is how the prospective law will be cited for legal purposes. This more moderate title will make you feel like less of an asshole if you choose to vote against Proposition 2, but it also accurately reflects the Proposition’s limited scope. Even with Proposition 2 in place there will still be plenty of room for California farmers to maintain artificially low bottom lines by treating their farm animals cruelly.

Despite its modest aims, Proposition 2 represents an important step toward establishing as a legal reality the common sense notion that farmers who raise animals have an obligation to treat those animals humanely. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly given the strength of the farm lobby, there are essentially no laws in place to protect the welfare of farm animals in California.

Proposition 2 mandates that veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg laying hens must spend the majority of the day with room to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around. Given that California’s commercial veal and swine industries are relatively minor, the primary affect of this measure will be to eliminate the particularly harsh practice of storing hens in “battery cages” in which the birds are crammed tightly together as though they are inanimate commodities.

The opposition to Proposition 2 stems primarily from concerns that the measure will have a significant adverse impact on California’s $337 million egg industry. Although forecasting the precise impacts of the measure is a speculative endeavor, Proposition 2 will have economic consequences.

Over 90% of the approximately 20 million egg laying hens in the state currently live in battery cages, and Proposition 2 will force those farmers who utilize battery cages to overhaul their operations. If this drives farms out of business or out of state, California’s tax base will be reduced, and egg prices will likely rise as a result of increased production costs(estimates range from as little as one cent per egg to as much as twice their current price).

Another concern is that because this measure only affects egg production within the state and places no restrictions on eggs produced elsewhere, the measure could simply cause vendors to import unregulated, cheaper eggs (either from other states or Mexico), thereby harming the California egg industry without leading to a substantial net reduction in the number of hens forced to live in battery cages.

Any adverse economic impacts will, however, be mitigated by the fact that the measure will not take affect until January 1, 2015, giving farmers more than six years to develop viable operations not premised on providing the absolute minimum amount of space to their animals. Furthermore, Proposition 2 has symbolic significance and could help bring about a broader shift in both agricultural practice and consumer choice. Similar laws have already been passed in Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Oregon, (although Proposition 2 would be the first to eliminate battery cages for hens) and California, the nation’s largest agricultural state and a trend setter on a variety of fronts, could stimulate other states to follow its lead.

California consumers can help dictate this result by demanding that the eggs they purchase come from farms that operate pursuant to standards of confinement equivalent to those prescribed by Proposition 2. Currently 5% of all eggs are produced from “cage free” operations, and consumer demand could drive that number much higher. The successful passage of Proposition 2 will send the message that California consumers want their eggs to come from farms that employ humane practices.

The bottom line is that the farming industry has gotten away for far too long without being subjected to standards that set minimum levels of protection for farm animals. Given the power of the California farm lobby, a ballot proposition may be the only chance for the California electorate to ensure that a law protecting farm animals is enacted. Just as industry had to learn to survive economically without being able to dump waste directly into rivers or emit pollutants into the air with impunity, it is not unreasonable to require farmers to similarly evolve in their animal treatment practices. Allowing farmers to treat farm animals cruelly amounts to a direct economic subsidy, paid for by the animals themselves.

Proposition 2, although limited in scope, provides an opportunity for Californians to deliver the message that they will no longer tolerate unchecked cruelty against farm animals.

I urge you to vote yes on Proposition 2.
-----
The main sponsors of Proposition 2 are the Humane Society of the United States (the wealthiest animal rights organization in the country with a budget of over $100 million) and Farm Sanctuary (the largest organization in the country devoted specifically to farm animal rights).

Supporters of Proposition 2 include: California Veterinary Medical Association; Center for Food Safety; Union of Concerned Scientists; United Farm Workers; Center for Science in the Public Interest; Sierra Club California; Consumer Federation of America; California Democratic Party; Michael Pollan; Bill McKibben; and Eric Schlosser.

Tycoon in a (green) sheep's clothing

If you haven’t heard already, Prop 10 is a joke.

Prop 10 – the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Bond Proposition – is the brainchild of T. Boone Pickens, a Texas oil tycoon. It positions him to benefit handsomely from a distortion of the energy market that is costly for taxpayers and contrary to responsible energy and environmental policy.

Prop 10 diverts $5 billion away from crucial areas like education, transportation, and public health, primarily to subsidize the natural gas fuels industry. The cost to taxpayers over 30 years would be $10 billion or about $335 million a year. If such a dramatic amount is going to be diverted from vital services, especially in a financial crisis, it better be for a damn good reason. But it’s not.

It would be one thing if Prop 10 provided a boost that was clearly necessary and effective. However, the measure’s centerpiece is a bundle of incentives that mainly benefits fleet operators and corporations buying or leasing natural gas trucks – without any requirements that these trucks will actually improve air quality or reduce greenhouse gases. Even if some improvement is assumed, the incentive is only available to a narrow chunk of the fuels market, excluding hybrids, plug-in hybrids, electric cars, and other clean fuels.

By essentially legislating the creation of an artificial market, Prop 10 distracts from investment and development in more fruitful energy solutions. And, even if it weren’t such a flawed plan, it duplicates programs that already exist. Furthermore, increased demand for natural gas will encourage more potentially destructive drilling and, unluckily for the consumer, will also mean higher electricity and heating bills.

Prop 10 is indefensible on its merits. Its existence is only explainable when you learn that T. Boone Pickens just so happens to be the founder and majority shareholder in Clean Energy, North America’s largest vehicular natural gas provider. He paid $3 million to collect enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot, hoping to greenwash his way into a guaranteed market for his company. Thankfully, voters will likely be in no mood for such shenanigans in the middle of a financial crisis and Mr. Pickens will have to think of another way to line his pockets.

Selected organizations against Prop 10: California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV), The Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environment California, Plug In America, The Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy (AREP), Consumer Federation of California, California Chamber of Commerce.

http://www.prop10yes.com
http://www.noonproposition10.org

NO on PROPOSITION 7: Messy Measure Hurts Clean Energy

Prop 7 embodies both the ideals and the fatal flaws of the California initiative process. Well-intentioned yet tragically defective, Prop 7 would add complexity and unreachable standards to legislation that is already both sufficient and effective. Worse yet, it is laden with loopholes and inflexible standards that would require a 2/3 majority vote by the CA legislature to repair.

Alternative energy is a worthy cause that needs all the legislative support it can get. But the ill-conceived regulations in Prop 7 (drawn up by John Sperling, founder of the for-profit University of Phoenix) are destined for failure. One particularly egregious clause would allow contracts to suffice as demonstration of compliance, rather then actual production. California needs real energy solutions, not phantom projects that will never be completed.

Furthermore, Prop 7’s pricing policies rigidly restrain the price of renewable electricity, a foolhardy rule likely to impede important wind and solar projects while allowing natural gas prices to soar with the market. Such price limits could actually slow the development of renewable electricity projects by making it more difficult for them to attain financing.

Finally, Prop 7 bizarrely discriminates against projects that are less than 30 megawatts. Small projects should be favored over large projects because they can better meet local needs and provide local jobs. Such projects currently account for nearly 60 percent of current renewable energy projects. Many of these will be at risk of being driven out of the market entirely under Prop 7’s new structure.

The California legislature needs the freedom to create carefully designed policies that will promote equitable and effective energy policy. Prop 7 will erect practically irreversible frameworks requiring a 2/3 majority to reform, thus crippling the legislature’s ability to produce innovative and badly needed energy policies. In the words of the San Francisco Chronicle, Prop 7 drives renewable energy off a cliff. But you don’t have to take their word for it. Here is the extensive list of environmental organizations in opposition to Prop 7: California League of Conservation Voters, Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, Coalition for Clean Air, Environment California, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club California, Union of Concerned Scientists.

Treeblogger RELAUNCH!

After a brief hiatus, Treeblogger is back in force. We're debuting the new edition of the blog with editorials on the four environmentally significant propositions on the 2008 California ballot. We welcome your feedback!