Updated: Nov 28, 2022
Pro and con online signs regarding California Proposition 30
By Alfred Robert Hogan
Even though every election is a climate election, as ace teen eco champion Greta Thunberg astutely notes, the environment was directly posed as an issue before US voters only in California and New York state in the November 2022 midterm elections. The upshot results amounted to a split decision: one loss, one win.
In California, about 3/5 of voters protected their state’s multi-millionaires from a modest 1.75-percent temporary surtax, to be in place for 20 years or less (if emissions were to drop quickly enough), and favored more sicknesses and deaths from air pollution stemming from the state’s dirty transportation and rampant wildfires. Only the state’s richest 35,000 to 43,000 or so individuals and families—estimates vary—would have been affected by the surtax, in any event less than 0.1 percent of the state’s population. It would have begun on New Year’s Day 2023, to help accelerate the state’s upgrade to Zero Emissions Vehicles, with grant and loan incentives to buy electric cars; install more charging stations; hire more firefighters; and implement additional wildfire prevention measures. Bicycle lanes, bicycle shares, and rapid mass transit would also have benefitted. Each year, Prop 30 would have easily raised an estimated US $3.5 billion to $5 billion.
However, with 100 percent of the slowly counted regular ballots in, as of late afternoon Friday 11 November, Proposition 30 “Yes” votes totaled 41.1 percent (2,732,188), while “No” votes totaled 58.9 percent (3,907,907). Some late-arriving mail-in ballots, overseas-cast ballots. and provisional ballots still remain to be counted, for the official final tally.
California counties in which Proposition 30 won and lost.
The measure—which would have set up the Clean Cars and Clean Air Trust Fund— received virtually no corporate media news coverage outside California, one of a handful of US states that often sets a bellwether pace on innovative ballot measures and other reforms. It was one of seven propositions on the state ballot.
In early July 2022, a statewide poll of “likely voters,” conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, had found 63 percent favoring Prop 30 and 35 percent opposing. By a later PPIC poll, conducted in early September 2022, support had fallen to 55 percent for the measure and 40 percent opposing. Yet, only 42 percent then deemed passage “very important” to them, a number that varied little from Democrats to Republicans to independents. (That same poll also found that only 8 percent of likely voters recognized climate and environment as the topmost issue, tied for 4th place with water and drought. The top issue was inflation and the economy, at 29 percent.) By the mid-October 2022 PPIC poll, only 41 percent supported and 52 percent opposed Prop 30.
Leading the pro-Prop 30 effort was “Yes on 30: Clean Air California,” a broad umbrella coalition that included California Environmental Voters and the California State Association of Electrical Workers. Two additional committees supported Prop 30: “Yes on 30: Working Families and Environmental Voters to Expose Greedy Billionaires and CEOs,” and the “California Environmental Voters Issues Committee.” In addition, the measure was backed by the California Democratic State Party; two progressive Democratic U.S. Representatives—Barbara Lee and Ro Khanna; the mayors of such major cities as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Long Beach, and San Jose; the American Lung Association; 2020 Democratic POTUS nomination candidate and NextGen Climate President Tom Steyer; Bay Area 350; the Natural Resources Defense Council; the Southern Cristian Leadership Conference; Schools for Climate Action; the Alliance of Nurses for Health and Environment; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union; and the California Firefighters Local 288 union. Notably absent: the Sierra Club of California, whose national organization is based in San Francisco. The state club’s weak excuse: that some Prop 30 wildfire funding “could go to projects that have negative ecological consequences, and programs that Sierra Club California has opposed in the past.” Editorial endorsements in support came from at least two state newspapers: the San Francisco Chronicle and the Bay Area Reporter, the latter of which had enthused, “This tax makes sense if the state is truly going to embrace zero-emission vehicles. Vote YES on Prop 30." (The majority of San Franciscans did vote yes on Prop 30.)
the Clean Cars and Clean Air Trust Fund
Endorsement statements made that were posted online included:
· Bill Magavern, the Coalition for Clean Air policy director: “Most Californians continue to regularly face choking levels of smog and soot, and failure to meet healthy air standards could mean a loss of federal transportation funds. The state is not on track to meet our 2030 standard for reducing climate-changing pollution, largely because transportation emissions have stayed stubbornly high. With our lungs under assault from the coronavirus respiratory infection, we–now, more than ever–need to protect Californians from lung-searing emissions. The urgency of our air pollution and climate crises demand that we clean up our vehicles rapidly.” In fact, out of some 39 million people living in the Golden State, 38 million breathe polluted air each day.
Mark W. Toney, executive director of the environmental group TURN: "What if we could lower the cost of electric vehicles, build more charging stations, and reduce monthly electricity bills at the same time? TURN supports Prop 30 because it ensures that the funds necessary to accelerate electrification of the transportation system to dramatically reduce carbon emissions doesn’t come out of the pockets of families struggling to make ends meet."
David Leon Zink, survivor of the devastating “Camp Fire” that wiped out Paradise CA in November 2018 and killed 68 people: "The scars of the Camp Fire in Paradise linger on here in Chico. Like many others, I lost my home in that devastating fire. The Camp Fire leveled my community—90 percent of structures in Paradise were lost in the blaze. Butte County records find that many of the unhoused population here in Chico were my neighbors in Paradise. A wildfire can take away someone's home and rob them of their livelihood. Prop 30 provides CAL FIRE with the long-term funding necessary to take a preventative approach to forest management and avoid the next Paradise." (In late October 2019, ace teen eco champion Greta Thunberg and her father Svante Thunberg were guided through the charred remains of Paradise, for a first-hand look at the climate-fueled fire’s utter devastation.)
In opposition to Prop 30 were two committees: “No on 30” and “No on 30 - Educators Opposed to Corporate Handouts.” In addition to Newsom—whose political committee donated $1.9 million to the No side—opponents included the California Republican Party, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Teachers Association, and the ultra- conservative, fiercely anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. (The teachers union mostly appeared covetously jealous that the money would not go directly to schools.) At least five state newspapers editorialized against Prop 30: The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Orange County Register, The Los Angeles Times, and The Sacramento Bee, which inveighed in part, "In simple terms, Prop 30 is Lyft’s way of getting someone else to pay the bill for the transition from gas- to electric-powered cars. That someone else? Californians earning more than $2 million a year, whose income tax would go up by 1.75 percentage points." The San Diego paper fretted that resulting spending might exceed the ”hard cap” Gann limit imposed by voters in 1979—an arbitrary and artificial cap that, if need be, could be revised upward or even ended. Other editorials either snobbishly kvetched that the measure would “tap into class envy” or hinted that rich taxpayers might flee the state because of the tiny and temporary surtax or urged voters to leave such matters to the professional politicians. (Even with the surtax, high-end taxpayers in California would still only pay 15.05 percent in state income taxes.)
Most analysts agree that the pivotal turning point came on Monday 12 September, when a widely and repeatedly aired, aggressive, and misleading TV advert featured the state’s conservative Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom opposing Proposition 30. In ad blitz’s spots, he railed against the Lyft ride-hailing service financially backing Proposition 30, deriding the measure as “a special-interest carve-out” and “a Trojan horse that puts corporate welfare above the fiscal welfare of an entire state.” (In actual fact, Lyft—though it donated $45 million to the pro-Prop 30 side—would have received no direct payments and backed Prop 30 only after the measure was already written by environmentalists. Under California law, Lyft and Uber will be required to have at least 90 percent of the distances driven by their contracted cars as clean-energy ZEVs—predominantly meaning electric—by 2030.)
As California Environmental Voters CEO Mary Creasman told Cal Matters, Newsom’s fervent opposition “100%” contributed to the loss, as did “lies” from the “No” juggernaught on what it would do. As she explained, Prop 30 “had a record number of billionaires against it, it had complete falsehoods thrown at it, and it had the most popular Democratic leader in the state against it. And we still got 40% of the vote.”
Newsom and his proxies cited a 2022 California Assembly-passed environmental pledge (not an actual appropriation) that designated a modest $10 billion for ZEV transition over some years, and a decision by the California Air Resources Board, also made in mid-2022, to ban sales of only new gas-powered cars and only as of far-off 2035, as having done enough already on the environment.
Of course, Newsom has a half-century-plus history of close personal and political ties to the fossil fuels industry. Back in 1973, on behalf of his close longtime family friends the Getty oil family, Newsom dressed up as a priest to deliver ransom money in Italy to the organized-crime kidnappers of 16-year-old John Paul Getty III, one of the grandchildren of miserly oil tycoon J. Paul Getty. (It took an ear cut off the younger Getty being sent to finally persuade the elder Getty to provide the ransom, and end the five-month-long kidnapping—part of which sum he charged his son 4 percent interest on, as a loan.)
In the December 2003 runoff election against leftist Matt Gonzalez of the Green Party for mayor of San Francisco, Newsom prevailed by just 53 to 47 percent, after the Democrats brought in their “big guns” to shill for Newsom, including former VPOTUS Al Gore, former POTUS Bill Clinton, outgoing mayor Willie Brown, and formerly progressive civil rights leader Jesse L. Jackson Jr. Newsom was also backed by multiple business groups and corporate interests, and was married for eight years to later far-right Fox News Channel “legal analyst” Kimberly Guilfoyle. (His ex-wife left FNC amid major personal scandal, and she later dated and lives unmarried with Donald J. Trump Jr., son of the 45th POTUS, and is engaged to be married to that son.) If the Green Party had won its first major-city mayorship, that would have psychologically given that progressive party a significant boost. Newsom has been embroiled in multiple personal scandals as well.
Evidently, in 2022, bankrolling the ambitious Newsom’s prospective run for the 2024 Democrat presidential nomination mattered vastly more to him than saving lives and preventing illness, more than cleaner air and fewer wildfires. So, he chose to distort the facts and zealously safeguarded the wallets of his prospective high-end wealthy donors, some analysts contended.
Prop 30 marked the 26th environment-related ballot question in California since 1926, and the first since 2018. In November 1990 alone, four out of the five—including Prop 128, Big Green—failed. (One had also passed in June 1990, on the state’s primary election ballot.)
And so, with Prop 30’s failure, Californians will continue to endure “by far the worst air pollution in the entire country,” Bill Magavern of the Coalition for Clean Air told Inside Climate News. “We’ve had summers of horrendous wildfires, and smog and particle pollution, and Prop 30 was a chance to take us to a clean air future…We’re going to continue to be plagued by smoke and soot and smog in our air, which means thousands of people will die unnecessarily every year in California from air pollution. We could have stopped that.” Environmentalists and health advocates say they will continue pushing the California State Assembly and will likely try again with another ballot initiative at the polls.
Back in 1990, the year of the 20th anniversary of Earth Day, the state’s Proposition 128, known as the “Big Green” ballot initiative, seemed to suffer a similar fate as Proposition 30 did in 2022. Even as POTUS 41 George H.W. Bush successfully pushed and lied his way toward an “oil war” in Kuwait and Iraq, some environmentalists really hoped Prop. 128's seeming impending passage would set off a national pro-environment action trend. Big Green’s key purposes were to:
· Ban 20 cancer-causing pesticides used by agriculture by 1997 (though only if substitutes could be found or developed)
· Reduce heat-trapping greenhouse gases by 40 percent to slow global warming
· Curtail clear-cut logging of forests
· End offshore oil drilling except in “national emergencies” and establish a $500 million oil spill cleanup fund
· Allocate to redwood trees and forests preservation $300 million
· Devote to environmental restoration projects $40 million
· Vouchsafe for a Habitat Conservation Fund $30 million and
· Create an elected environmental advocate to implement and oversee these rules.
As Big Green’s campaign manager Bob Mulholland confidently told The New York Times in April 1900, “There’s no way we can lose. This is a done deal. We can’t lose unless there’s an earthquake that stops California.” Indeed, polls showed Big Green passing by at least a 15-percent margin at one point. Yet in November 1990, the measure failed by 64.35 percent to 35.65 percent, close to 2 to 1.
While some ardent environmentalists thought Big Green—Prop 128, the “Environment and Public Health Bonds”—was actually much too under-ambitious, some of its more milquetoast backers quickly expressed chagrin. Carl Pope, then the conservation director for the San Francisco-based Sierra Club, and later its president, told The Los Angeles Times in November 1990: “It is clear that the public sent the environmental community a message…They said they want environmental reform presented in smaller chunks, and that is a lesson for us. So we will be faced with a lot more ballot measures next time if the governor and the state Legislature can’t handle their jobs.” California Assemblyman and Proposition 128 avid supporter Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), called the defeat a “humbling experience.” (Some had dubbed it the “Hayden Initiative,” in his honor.) Many Hollywood celebrities had also backed Prop. 128. He added to The Los Angeles Times, “You can’t take anything for granted…You can’t be overconfident.” And William Reilly, conservative Republican POTUS Bush 41’s administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, weighed in with The Los Angeles Times in November 1990, “Proposition 128 simply tried for too much too fast. Far from signaling an end to public interest in the environment, California’s voters showed their concern that this particular initiative was confusing, fraught with unknowns for the state’s economy, and attempted to do too much at once.”
Now, fast forward to 2022, and according to the definitive Ballotpedia Web site, Prop 30 proponents had spent about US $48 million, (including $45 million donated by Lyft), whereas opponents had spent $25 million—making Prop 30 the USA’s fourth-most-costly ballot question of 2022. (Usually, as with Prop 128, the anti-environment side vastly outspends the pro-environment one.)
Monies raised would have been allocated this way:
· 35 percent for new charging stations,
· 45 percent for ZEV support programs, including for rebates and loans to lower-income EV buyers and EV buyers living in intensely polluted areas, and
· 20 percent for enhanced wildfire prevention (and thus air pollution control).
* * *
Meanwhile in New York, the environment fared substantially better, with about 2/3 of voters approving the first environmental issue on statewide ballots there in the 21st century. NYC voted more than 4/5 in favor. The US $4.2 billion bond measure is officially known as “Amendment 1: The Clean Water, Clean Air, and Green Jobs Environmental Bond Act od 2022.” In New York State, citizens cannot directly initiate ballot questions. So, this bond proposal was passed by the General Assembly in Albany, which then referred it to state voters for their additional verdict. Across the 30-year life of the bond, it will provide money to help implement the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. That legislation set the modest climate goals of New York cutting greenhouse gases emissions by 40 percent by 2030, and deriving 70 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by then. It also stipulates that all electricity in New York will come from renewables by 2040, and mandated just an 85 percent cut in emissions by far-off 2050, then 31 years in the future. (In January 2020, an earlier, smaller $3 billion version of the environmental bond measure was proposed in the State of the State address by conservative then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo [D-NY], who backtracked after the General Assembly passed it. In July 2020, Cuomo cited as his excuse the COVID-19 pandemic and its extra state spending, drawing sharp criticism from environmentalists and pro-environment state legislators. Thus, that “Restore Mother Nature Bond Act” never reached voters for their ultimate verdict in November 2020.)
NY Gov. Kathy Hochul at a climate action announcement.
Photo courtesy Mike Groll/Governor’s Office
Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY),who had succeeded Cuomo after he resigned amid multiple personal scandals in August 2021, had successfully asked the state legislature in September 2021 to increase the bond amount, to $4.2 billion, which it finally did in April 2022. It was renamed the “Clean Water, Clean Air, and Green Jobs Environmental Bond Act.” However, some environmentalists had wanted even more money. (Hochul was herself elected to a full term in November 2022, in a surprisingly super-close race.) She tweeted on the day after the election: "New Yorkers had a historic opportunity to invest in clean water, upgrade our infrastructure, and create good-paying jobs—and they took it! Our expanded #NYBondAct will help build a greener, brighter future for all." At a presser back on Wednesday 21 September, she had told reporters, “I need to have everybody who cares about human life on this planet and lives in the state of New York to mobilizer to make sure the vote gets out in support of this bond act.”
Online pro-Prop 1 sign from New York state.
On the positive side, the “Vote Yes to Clean Water and Jobs” umbrella committee/PAC led the proponents. Among the organizations allied were the Environmental Advocates of New York, the New York League of Conservation Voters, New Yorkers for Clean Water & Jobs, Riverkeeper, Inc., and The Nature Conservancy. (The Nature Conservancy and Scenic Hudson Inc. were the two biggest donors, as of data filed by Monday 24 October 2022, donating about $1.2 million and about $630,000, respectively. In all, the pro side spent about $4.2 million.)
Among the pro endorsement statements were these three:
· Julie Tighe, president of the New York League of Conservation Voters: "The…ballot initiative would authorize $4.2 billion in state spending to safeguard clean air and water, preserve farmland and natural space, and update our infrastructure system. The bond act will fund projects to replace dangerous lead pipes and make critical infrastructure updates, from upgrading our sewers, fixing roads, retrofitting buildings and expanding clean energy. It will also create and expand parks and green spaces, which we’ve all heavily relied on throughout the pandemic. The measure will support family farms and provide funds for improved soil health and will fund conservation projects that will protect our forests, lakes and wildlife habitats. All these projects require skilled labor and the measure will support nearly 100,000 good, local and family-sustaining jobs. We also recognize that for decades, low-income communities and people of color are the most impacted by environmental injustices."
· Amy Chester, managing director of Rebuild by Design: "Communities in New York State are already suffering from climate change. Recent disasters from Hurricane Ida to last summer’s severe heat waves, as well as the COVID-19 pandemic, have revealed the stark reality that these events disproportionately hurt the most vulnerable populations. We need to pass the Bond Act and give communities the resources they need to build infrastructure that will address climate change and put New York on a path to recovery."
· William C. Janeway, Executive Director of The Adirondack Council: “The Bond Act will conserve wildlife habitats and increase access to parks, nature centers, campgrounds, and public waterfronts. Adirondack wildlife projects will help native species move from one location to another as suitable cool-weather habitat shifts northward and upslope due to a warming climate.”
On the negative side, while there was no formal committee or money raised, officials the state’s Conservative Party and some especially right-wing state Republicans expressed individual opposition, mainly on spending grounds. Gerard Kassar, president of the New York State Conservative Party, curmudgeonly kvetched that while his party “cares about environmental conservation…it also cares about working- and middle-class families that are having trouble making ends meet. Almost a million and a half financially beleaguered New York families have fled the state for friendlier tax climes over the past dozen years, and Albany Democrats still don’t get it.” But no organized opposition or spending developed.
The general obligatory bond money would be allocated thusly, across many years:
· $1.5 billion for climate change mitigation measures, such as cutting energy usage and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from state-owned buildings; lessening air and water pollution in “environmental justice communities”; protecting wetlands to address sea-level rise, storm surge, and flooding; relocating or retrofitting buildings where appropriate; carbon sequestration; green building projects such as green roofs and reflective roofs; planting street trees and urban forests; adding solar arrays, heat pumps, and wind turbines in public low-income housing areas; and establishing more green spaces and cooling centers to adapt to extreme urban heat islands—and of this sum, at least $500 million will go toward for zero-emission electric school buses by distant 2035—the year after most current first graders will be high school graduates
· $1.1 billion for flood-risk reduction in flood-prone roadways and properties, repair flood-prone roads and infrastructure, and to ecologically restore streams coasts, and wetlands
· $650 million improved water infrastructure, reducing chemical runoff from non-organic farms, and upgrading city stormwater management and wastewater treatment systems. “for projects related to wastewater, sewage, and septic infrastructure; lead service line replacement; riparian buffers; stormwater runoff reduction; agricultural nutrient runoff reduction; and addressing harmful algal blooms”
· $650 million for open-space land conservation (such as by preserving farmland) and rehabilitation (such as by improving state parks, campgrounds, and fish hatcheries) and recreational programs
· $500 million for clean water infrastructure
· $400 million for renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements in state-owned buildings
· $500 million for offshore wind power development
· $400 million for an Environmental Protection Fund and
· $300 million unallocated, for yet-to-be-specified environmental purposes.
Moreover, the 2022 ballot measure mandates that at least 35 percent of the bonds benefit disadvantaged communities. Those were to be defined by the Climate Justice Working Group of the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation, based on such factors as “socioeconomic criteria, pollution and environmental hazard, and areas vulnerable to flooding, storm surge, and urban heat island effects.”
In late September 2022, a poll of “likely voters,” conducted by the private Siena College Research Institute in Loudonville NY, had found 55 percent of New York state respondents favoring the measure and 26 percent against it, with 12 percent not planning to vote on the measure. But in that poll, Democrat support split 78 percent for and 6 percent against, while Republican support plummeted to 23 percent, with 54 percent opposed, 18 percent undecided, and 7 percent indicating they would not vote on the question. Figures for other parties and independents were not available.
It was the 11th time since 1910, the year author Mark Twain died and Halley’s Comet made its periodic reappearance, that New York voters (only men in 1910) were asked to decide an environmental measure on the ballot. (The ask was for merely $2 million in loans in 1910, not adjusted for inflation.) Ten of those questions passed—also in 1916, 1924, 1960, 1962, 1965 (the non-adjusted-for-inflation $940 million Pure Waters Bond Act passed decisively, with more than 80 percent support), 1966, 1972, 1986, and 1996. The last measure—26 years ago, in 1996—was backed by then-NY Gov. George Pataki, a conservative Republican, and passed with just 55 percent support from voters. (A small portion of that money, about $182 million, is still entangled in red tape, and yet unspent.) Only in 1990—the 20th anniversary year of Earth Day—did one measure fail, the $1.975 billion (not adjusted for inflation) “Twenty-first Century Environmental Quality Bond Act.” Only a just-shy-of-passing 48.5 percent backing the measure. In all, pre-Amendment 1, New Yorkers had in 112 years okayed $5.7 billion in environmental bonds, or equal to about $30 billion in 2022, in all. For some perspective, pre-Amendment 1, New York state now carries $67 billion in bonds.
The 2022 elections featured no questions related to the related topics of either animal rights or veganism. But other subjects dealt with included abortion rights, support for arts and music education, expanded access to Medicaid, gun restrictions, recreational marijuana, psychedelic mushrooms, taxes on millionaires, making voter ID laws even tougher, removing slavery language from state constitutions, furthering gambling expansion, and expanding alcohol sales.
Newspaper and Online Articles:
California Proposition 30, Ballotpedia, accessed on Thursday 10 November 2022 https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_30,_Tax_on_Income_Above_$2_Million_for_Zero-Emissions_Vehicles_and_Wildfire_Prevention_Initiative_(2022) -- this includes Television
· Yes on 30 www.facebook.com/watch/?v=687255999241760
Californians for Clean Air, no date but from 2022 https://yeson30.org
“More Democrats Support Prop 30, Which Newsom Opposes,” Wednesday 21 September 2022 www.nbcbayarea.com/decision-2022/california-prop-30-debate/3008262/
“California General Election November 8, 2022, Official Voter Information Guide” https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/quick-reference-guide/30.htm
Keely Van Middendop and Amy Pachla/KERO-TV 23 Bakersfield CA, “IN-DEPTH: California’s 2022 Ballot Propositions: Proposition 30/Proposition 30 asks voters if they want to create a wealth tax to help implement California's aggressive climate goals,” Monday 31 October 2022 www.turnto23.com/news/election-2022/in-depth-californias-2022-ballot-propositions-proposition-30
“PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government,” Public Policy Institute of California, Wednesday 14 September 2022 www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-september-2022/
Eliyahu Kamisher, Silicon Valley.com/San Jose CA, “California's 'tax the rich' Prop. 30 appears headed to defeat,” Tuesday 8 November 2022 www.msn.com/en-us/travel/article/californias-tax-the-rich-prop-30-appears-headed-to-defeat/ar-AA13WE7V
Alex Shultz/SF Gate, “Gov. Newsom uses big chunk of reelection funds to oppose Prop. 30.” Thursday 3 November 2022 www.sfgate.com/politics/article/newsom-campaign-against-prop-30-17556044.php
Andrew Saintsing, KALW-FM Radio San Francisco, “CA Prop 30 Would Have Taxed Millionaires to Pay for Electric Vehicles,” Wednesday 9 November 2022 www.kalw.org/kalw-news/2022-11-09/ca-prop-30
Blanca Begert, Grist, “Why did Californians reject Prop 30 with its billions in EV funding?,” Wednesday 16 November 2022
Ben Christopher/CalMatters, “Why California’s eco-friendly, tax-the-rich electorate [sic] killed Prop. 30,” Saturday 12 November 2022 www.capradio.org/articles/2022/11/12/why-californias-eco-friendly-tax-the-rich-electorate-killed-prop-30/
Debate on Proposition 30 arranged by McClatchy Newspapers, October 2022, video and audio 38 mins. www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article268146927.html
Stephen Hobbs and Maggie Angst/Sacramento Bee, “How Gavin Newsom killed Prop 30, a California proposal to tax the rich for climate change,” Friday 11 November 2022 https://sports.yahoo.com/gavin-newsom-killed-prop-30-130000333.html
Ben Christopher/Cal Matters, “Why California’s eco-friendly, tax-the-rich electorate killed Prop. 30,”Thursday 10 November 2022 http://calmatters.org/politics/election-2022/2022/11/california-election-results-prop30/
Jessica Wolfrom, “Who pays for climate change impacts, now that Californians have rejected Prop. 30?,”San Francisco Chronicle, updated on Friday 11 November 2022 www.sfexaminer.com/news/bay-area-news/californians-reject-prop-30-controversial-climate-law/article_53c86a7a-6073-11ed-9313-9fb5201a0620.html
Liza Gross, Inside Climate News, “California Climate Measure Fails After ‘Green’ Governor [SIC] Opposed It in a Campaign Supporters Called ‘Misleading’/Proposition 30 would have taxed the state’s wealthiest residents to subsidize EVs, charging infrastructure and wildfire protection. But public support flagged after Gov. Newsom became the face of the opposition.,” Thursday 10 November 2022 https://insideclimatenews.org/news/10112022/california-prop-30-electric-vehicles-lyft-newsom/?utm_source=InsideClimate+News&utm_campaign=5a2c483ff9-&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-5a2c483ff9-327991770
Maura Dolan and Richard C. Paddock, “California Elections: Proposition 128: ‘Big Green’ Reached Too Far, Backers Say,” The Los Angeles Times, Thursday 8 November 1990 www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-11-08-mn-5394-story.html#:~:text=Voters%20on%20Tuesday%20overwhelming%20rejected%20Proposition%20128%2C%20the,Hollywood%20celebrities%20donated%20money%20and%20time%20to%20them.
Vote Yes for Clean Water and Jobs Web site https://voteyescleanwaterandjobs.com/the-vote-yes-for-clean-water-jobs-coalition-launches-robust-7-figure-campaign-to-pass-the-environmental-bond-act-on-november-8th/
Ethan Geringer-Sameth, Gotham Gazette, “New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act” Wednesday 9 November 2022 https://www.gothamgazette.com/state/11665-new-york-voters-approve-environmental-bond-act
Zoe Grueskin, UK The Guardian, “America’s dirty divide/New York passes $4.2bn environmental bond act on midterm ballot/Proposal, a first in 26 years, aims to disburse benefits to communities most impacted by the climate crisis,” Thursday 10 November 2022 www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/10/new-york-passes-environmental-bonds-midterm-elections?amp;amp;amp
Sydney Julien and Laura Rabinow, “New York’s Environmental Bond Acts,” Rockefeller Institute of Government, Thursday 28 April 2022 https://rockinst.org/blog/new-yorks-environmental-bond-acts/