PUBLIC COMMENT: Opposition to Free Allowance Allocations as part of Proposed Regulation to Implement the California Cap-and-Trade Program

To: California Air Resources Board

From: Michael Feinstein

Date: December 15th, 2010

Subject: Allowance Allocations as part of Proposed Regulation to Implement the California Cap-and-Trade Program

I am writing to you from México, where I have been in Cancun during the recently concluded COP16 climate change negotiations. After attending the COP14 in Bali in 2007, where there was great hope that the post-Kyoto process would lead to binding international GHG reduction targets, the non-binding, minimal-at-best results of Cancun provide little hope that necessary action will occur first on the national and supra-national levels. Therefore, to deal with the already present global climate change catastrophe, we must act forcefully at the state and local levels. This is where the proposal in front of CARB to grant free allocations to industry fails miserably.

I am a Green Party member. As Greens, we favor a True Cost Pricing approach to economics, where the price of goods and services embody their true environmental costs. Sending environmentally accurate price signals to consumers helps them make environmentally-friendly choices, while rewarding companies that act more environmentally sound.

In terms of carbon pricing, Greens generally favor carbon taxes over cap-and-trade schemes, because carbon taxes provide the most direct path to internalizing carbon costs and also provide more predictability in cost, are simpler and faster to implement, and are less open to manipulation through the political, legislative and/or regulatory process.

For these reasons, many Greens are extremely disappointed in the CARB staff recommendation to implement a cap-and-trade scheme instead of a carbon tax. Nowhere could this be more clear than in our opposition to the staff's recommendations to grant free allocations to covered industry (www.cagreens.org/press/pr101214.shtml).

The relevant issue with these free allocations is not leakage risk, but whether California can provide leadership by showing that an economic model that honestly and fully internalizes the environmental costs of burning carbon can work for consumers and producers.

Research has demonstrated that even with no free allowances, and even for energy-intensive industries, changes in retail electricity prices are likely to be small. California led the way to national emission control reductions in 1970 by implementing its Catalytic Converter law, by showing that consumers were willing to pay a little more for environmental protection. We can do it again now on GHG emission reductions, but not if we give away the right to emit for free.

The irony in the rationale to grant free allocations is as the staff report states, "Free allocation needed to minimize leakage will be maintained until adoption of equivalent carbon-pricing policies by other jurisdictions eliminates the leakage risk." Is 'waiting for others' what leadership is all about?

Putting aside that the political conditions which led to the adoption of AB32 in California may not even be present in other states for some time, what happens if other states actually do adopt the same model as California? Since the proposed free allocation model fails to accurately internalize carbon costs, we will then have proved little about industries' actual ability to truly adapt to such costs, and therefore only have delayed needed and sufficient action to our planetary crisis.

The absurdity of this free allowance is exactly why many Greens tends to favor carbon taxes over cap-n-trade, and why if the CARB board adopts the staff recommendation, it would be an abdication of historic proportion of our state's environmental leadership role. Given the size of California's economy as the eighth largest in the world, we have the opportunity to demonstrate that nations, not just states, can prosper with fully internalized carbon-burning costs.

In the post COP16 world, we desperately need such an example. Therefore I urge you to rise to the occasion and seize this opportunity for global leadership. Please eliminate the free allowances from the regulations governing the cap-and-trade program you approve.

Sincerely

Michael Feinstein

Co-chair, Green Party of the United States

Former Mayor and City Councilmember, Santa Monica, California

www.gp.org/committees/steering/sc-bios/Mike-Feinstein.php

Opinion: Prop 14 is Bad for Smaller Parties, Bad for Democracy Overall

Special to Fox and Hounds Daily

http://foxandhoundsdaily.com/blog/michael-feinstein/6989-prop-14-bad-smaller-parties-bad-democracy-overall

Opinion: Prop 14 is Bad for Smaller Parties, Bad for Democracy Overall

By Michael Feinstein
Co-chair of the Green Party of the United States and a former Mayor and City Councilman in Santa Monica, Calif.

Thu, May 27th, 2010

The Green Party of California opposes Proposition 14 because it would reduce voter choice and political voice across political lines, while unfairly favoring incumbents, big money and party insiders.

By eliminating party primaries, expanding the number of voters that primary candidates have to reach and effectively front-loading the election process, Proposition 14 would put even greater emphasis on name recognition and early fundraising, increasing the corrupting influence of money and making it harder for competing candidates and movements to survive, let alone contend.

Because of pressure not to "split the primary vote" of their party's faithful, incumbents and well-funded candidates would also be more able to "clear the field" and squeeze out competitors (like Schwarzenegger did during the recall), putting more power into the hands of party machines and insiders to, de facto, select general election candidates. As a result, Proposition 14 would stifle diversity and competition within the major parties and at the same time, limit the choices of independent voters who can already vote within the major party primaries.

Proposition 14's backers are trying to sell this electoral scheme by promising it will deliver representatives of a particular political persuasion. Since when did the purpose of elections change from representing the people — whatever their views — to socially engineering a specific result?

Ironically, experience in Louisiana and Washington with similar "top two" primaries doesn't back up the claim that Proposition 14 would elect more "moderates" (who's to say what moderate is, anyway?). Rather, these systems have served as incumbent protection plans while doing little to shift political discourse. Washington's version is subject to trial on its constitutionality in U.S. District Court this October, while Louisiana's is hardly a model of government to emulate.

Lost amidst this controversy is that Proposition 14 is also a frontal assault on the Greens and California’s other smaller qualified parties. But in a polite democracy, we can’t be up-front about that, can we? That’s why it wasn’t surprising that a non-Green published a green-washing piece on Fox and Hounds, while in their best Orwellian Newspeak, the LA Times opined that “Prop. 14 won't destroy third parties.”

In gushing about Proposition 14, Washington State ex-Green Party member Maryrose Asher said nothing about how it would threaten California’s smaller parties, yet used her former party affiliation to imply Greens support it. Her main point seemed to be that voters previously had to sign a party loyalty pledge before they could vote in Washington’s Democratic and Republican presidential caucuses. This is irrelevant to Proposition 14.

Asher then stated “We need to open up the opportunity to those independent and third party voters and candidates who have been shut out of the political system, especially with recent polls showing voters dissatisfied with the Republican and Democratic Party.” This is ironic because Proposition 14 effectively forces California’s growing number of independent voters to vote for only Democrats and Republicans in the general election.

The LA Times gets it even worse. California’s six qualified political parties recently held joint press conferences to state their opposition to Proposition 14, with the smaller parties emphasizing how it could eliminate them entirely. In the same way a despot tries to crush even the most marginal voice that suggests the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes, the Times misrepresented the facts to dismiss this claim. Pretending to be ‘objective’, they said “California politics are enlarged and enlivened by the presence of minor parties…So when those parties, most notably the Greens, claim that some new development threatens their existence, it's worth listening.” Without the courtesy of even contacting us, the Times concludes that Proposition 14 “would deny the Green Party publicity, and that's their fear.”

No, that’s not our fear. In California there are only two ways that parties stay on the ballot. One is to receive at least 2% in a general election for a statewide office like Governor or Secretary of State. But under Proposition 14, minor parties won’t be on the general election ballot for statewide office, so they can’t retain party status that way. The other method is to have a certain threshold number of voter registrations. But if this were the only method today, both the Libertarians and the Peace & Freedom Party would already be off the ballot and the Greens would be threatened with the same. Once a party no longer appears in general elections, it will be harder for it to retain and recruit members.

Had Proposition 14’s authors intended to honor California’s political diversity, they would’ve reduced this registration threshold. Instead, they are going for the jugular to eliminate smaller parties entirely. By omitting this, Proposition 14 supporters like Asher and the Times are complicit in the effort.

Why should most voters care? This threat to California’s smaller parties is a canary in the coalmine about Proposition 14. A system that works for all voters would give them more, not fewer, opportunities to elect representatives who reflect their views. Reducing candidates and parties to choose from is not the way to get there. Improving our democracy should be about embracing our state's extraordinary diversity with more choice, not less. Vote no on Proposition 14.

Opinion: Prop. 14 would weaken democracy, voter choice

I had the following opinion piece published today in the San Jose Mercury News, one of the largest daily papers in the state.

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_15071881?nclick_check=1

Opinion: Prop. 14 would weaken democracy, voter choice
By Michael Feinstein
Special to the San Jose Mercury News

When most Americans took high school civics, we were taught that the purpose of elections was to represent the people in government. Proposition 14's advocates are trying to sell their electoral scheme by promising it will deliver representatives of a particular political bent. Since when did the purpose of elections change from representing the people — whatever their views — to socially engineering a specific result?

As a Green Party member, I believe we share a belief with most Californians in equality of opportunity, but not necessarily of outcome. To us the best system of government is one that truly reflects the electorate in all its diversity, and then operates on the basis of majority rule. Blinded by the prospect of a prearranged result, Proposition 14 supporters are advocating an electoral system that could backfire on our state.

By eliminating party primaries, Proposition 14 would put greater emphasis on name recognition and early fundraising, increasing the corrupting influence of big money and making it harder for competing candidates and movements to survive, let alone contend. Because of the additional pressure not to "split the primary vote" of their party's faithful, incumbents and well-funded candidates would be more able to "clear the field" and squeeze out other candidates, putting more power into the hands of party machines and insiders to, de facto, select general election candidates. As a result, Proposition 14 would stifle diversity and competition within the major parties, limit the choices of independent voters and drive minor parties off the ballot.

This last point is worth repeating, because Proposition 14 supporters conveniently and consistently omit it. In California parties can stay on the ballot by receiving at least 2 percent of the vote in the general election for offices like governor or secretary of state. But if Proposition 14 passes, independent smaller parties won't be on the statewide general election ballot, so they can't retain party status that way.

The other method is to have a certain number of voter registrations. But if this were the only method available, the Libertarians and the Peace and Freedom Party would already be off the ballot, and the Green Party would be under threat. Once a party no longer appears in general elections, it will be harder for it to recruit and retain members.

Why should most voters care? The threat to California's smaller parties is a canary in the coal mine about what's wrong with Proposition 14. A system that truly worked for all voters would give them more, not fewer, opportunities to elect representatives who reflect their views. Eliminating candidates and parties to choose from is not the way to get there.

Ironically, data doesn't back up Proposition 14 supporters' claim that it would elect more "moderates" (who's to say what moderate is, anyway?). Experience in Louisiana and Washington with similar "top two" primary elections have served as incumbent protection plans but done little to shift political discourse. Washington's version is subject to trial in U.S. District Court on its constitutionality this October, while Louisiana's is hardly a model of government for California to emulate.

Unlike the high-risk Proposition 14 lottery, there are electoral systems that have been in place for decades around the world that our state could openly compare and contrast. Why not consider multiseat districts with proportional representation, where Democrats and Republicans could win seats according to their percentage of the vote, along with parties like the Greens if they have enough support, as in Europe?

But whatever the approach, changing our democracy should be about embracing our state's extraordinary diversity with more choice, not less. Vote no on Proposition 14.


MICHAEL FEINSTEIN is the co-chairman of the Green Party of the United States and a former mayor and city councilman in Santa Monica. He wrote this article for this newspaper.

San Jose Mercury News Misrepresents Prop 14's affect on Green Party

This is a letter I sent to the Editorial Board of the San Jose Mercury News.

Subject: Concern with your misrepresentation of Green Party in your Prop 14 endorsement

April 25th, 2010

Dear Ed Clendaniel and Randall Keith, San Jose Mercury News Editorial Board

I am a former Mayor and City Councilmember in Santa Monica and a current co-chair of the Green Party of the US. I want to express deep concern from a journalistic standpoint about how your paper portrayed the Green Party in your endorsement of Proposition 14.

As you may know, Green Parties all over the world thrive where they operate under more fair and representative electoral systems than we have in California (and the US.) If California Greens believed that operating under Prop 14 would more accurately reflect the real support in the electorate for green policies and positions than our the current system, we would likely support it.

However, the Green Party of California unconditionally opposes Prop 14, both because it discriminates against green minded voters and because it reduces choice and voice for California voters as a whole. Many of our party's members find it distasteful at best that supporters and endorsers of Prop 14 (like your paper) feel they can tell California's smaller independent parties that Prop 14 is good for them, when Prop 14 is designed to eliminate our voice and knock us off the ballot.

Specifically your editorial stated: "The top-two primary system is opposed by both major parties, since it would diminish their power. They also say it would exclude third parties from the general election — but the only member of the Green Party ever sent to the Assembly, Audie Bock of Oakland, was elected after an open primary."

This is deceptively misleading. It not just that the Democrats and Republicans say that Prop 14 would exclude California's smaller independent parties - it is those parties themselves that say this. The Libertarians, Greens and Peace & Freedom Party all oppose Prop 14.

If you want to advocate for Prop 14 that is your right. But when you state what you believe its likely impact will be on parties like the Greens, you have a responsibility as editors to say that the Green Party does not share that view. Instead you conveniently omitted this fact and tried to discredit this concern about Prop 14 by playing upon a faux anti-establishment populism against Democrats and Republicans.

Furthermore, your Audie Bock reference is neither accurate nor forthcoming. Green State Assembly candidate Bock was elected in a March 1999 election under blanket primary rules, not Prop 14 rules. In the first round of that election, she received only 8.5% in the first round, coming in 3rd. Had Prop 14 been in effect, that would have been the end of her campaign. But because the blanket primary provided for the top vote-getter from each ballot qualified party to advance to the run-off, she had a chance and won.

Perhaps most importantly in your editorial, you failed to mention that Prop 14 specifically eliminates one of the only ways California's smaller independent parties retain their ballot status - by appearing on the general election ballot and receiving at least 2% of the vote for a statewide constitutional office. How you can say these parties would benefit under Prop 14 without even mentioning this incredible negative for them is remarkable to say the least.

By your misstating and/or omitting these key facts, its hard to see your editorial in favor of Prop 14 as an honest attempt to influence voters. As such, it speaks of an abuse of the public trust we the people place in journalists and editors like yourself.

Sincerely,

Mike Feinstein, Co-Chair, Green Party of the United States
Santa Monica, CA
www.gp.org/committees/steering/sc-bios/Mike-Feinstein.php
www.cagreens.org/greenfocus/spring_10/oppose_prop_14.html