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

European Green Council meeting to go on live streaming video this weekend in Berlin

This weekend, the European Green Party is holding its Council meeting in Berlin, and is doing an exciting experiment, by putting their meeting on live streaming video for all to see. Click here to find out how to view the meeting in English and in German.

I've been attending their Council meetings on and off since June 1990, and at times have found the political debate very interesting and sophisticated. But I have lamented that only those of us in the room have heard or seen it and so many other Greens would benefit by observing such proceedings.

To follow along with what is going on, here is a copy of the agenda for the Council meeting, as well as a list of the participating delegates and their weighted votes (for all of you who love Green structure.)

Also of note is that Friday evening's program will feature former German Green Foreign Minister Joschka Fisher. Fisher served in that position between 1998 and 2005 when the German Greens were in coalition government with the Social Democratic Party.

For many Greens, Fisher usually has interesting and controversial things to say, as he has held arguably the highest position a Green on this planet has held, which means he has had to deal with the conjunction of Green values and real world political power more up front than any of the rest of us.

The times for streaming are:

- Friday, March 16th, from 18:00 to 22:00 Berlin time (welcome and Joschka Fisher Session, English and German streaming available).

- Saturday, March 17th, from 9:00 to 17:00 Berlin time (see program here)

To calibrate your local time zone with that of Berlin, I find this world clock web page to be useful.

Note - the announcement for this video streaming came from Juan Behrend, Secretary General of the European Greens. Juan has long been an active Green on the international level going back to the 1980s, including serving as Secretary General to the Green Group in the European Parliament. You can read about his background here. Today in addition to his work within Europe, Juan is integrally involved in the planning process for Global Greens 2008 in Nairobi, Kenya, May 1st-4th, 2008. Juan is usually working quietly behind the scenes and doesn't seek a lot of recognition. But I'm giving him some here, for being part of a team making Green activity on the European level more accessible to the rest of us.

Northern Ireland Greens merge with Green Party of Ireland

The Green Party in Northern Ireland anounced its merger with the Green Party in the Republic of Ireland, (called Comhaontas Glas in Gaelic) today at a press conference held in Belfast, where a Memorandum of Understanding was signed to promote cooperative relations among the Greens in Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, Scotland and England & Wales parties. Northern Ireland Greens will now achieve recognition as a Regional Council of Comhaontas Glas, with voting rights on its National Executive Committee.

According to Trevor Sargent, Irish Green Party Leader and one of six Green members of the Dáil (the lower house of Irish parliament), "Today's development means that people throughout the island of Ireland will now have the opportunity to vote for an inclusive and progressive political party with a great record of representation and achievement in local and town councils across the UK and Ireland, in the Scottish Assembly, in the Irish Parliament and in the European Parliament."

Northern Irish Green Leader Dr. John Barry added, "The Motion is a significant political signal that we aim to be a genuinely inclusive and progressive party, embodying and celebrating all identities and accommodating political aspirations in the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement." Barry and colleagues claim that in this way, this North-South and East-West organization makes them the only party in Northern Ireland to not only support the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, but also to live it through their organizational arrangements.

I visited Northern Ireland in December 2004 and met with Barry and other local Greens, and was reminded of the difficulty of establishing a viable Green identity in a place where ethnic and/or religious divide are paramount. Despite this, the Northern Irish Greens have been slowly growing, including winning three city council seats in 2005. Now they are shooting for seats in the Northern Irish Assembly - in north Down, south Down and south Belfast. Here is their election platform, called "Greens Into Government."

How will they do? It may seem like a long shot today for them to elect members to the Assembly. But I am reminded of a similar situation of the Scottish Greens in the early 1990s, when they were struggling for a Green identity amidst the desire for Scottish regional autonomy from England and the central government in London.

Then Scotland got proportional representation and in May 1999, Robin Harper became the first Scottish Green to be elected to the Scottish Parliament. Four years later in 2003, he was joined by six other Greens to give the Scottish Greens seven parliamentary seats.

Who knows? Maybe we'll see the same thing in Northern Ireland - maybe even with the next election.

Mexico - Calderon assumes office amidst protests

Anyone who followed the news yesterday saw film of the protests in the chamber of the Mexican Federal Legislature - La Camara de Diputados - against the swearing in of Felipe Calderon as El Presidente of the nation. Opponents tried to prevent Calderon from reaching the podium to take the oath of office. And this was all broadcast en vivo for the world to see.

As I am often want to do, I watched the newscast last night on Univision, one of the many Spanish-language newscasts available here in Los Angeles. (This not only helps me improve my Spanish, but its amazing to see the difference in what is covered between the Spanish and English language media.)

During one moment I saw someone I knew in the crowd on the floor -- the president of the Mexican Green Party El Partido Verde Ecologista de Mexico (PVEM), Jorge Emilio Gonzalez. This made me think I wanted to know what was going on with the Mexican Greens.

Currently on the PVEM web site, there is a polite press release about moving ahead for the good of the country. There is always 'backstory' of course, so I'm making inquiries and hope to have more in a few days. Stay tuned.

May Oui - Elizabeth May places 2nd for the House of Commons

Great news from across the border - last night Elizabeth May, the Party Leader of the Green Party of Canada, finished an impressive second among the four major parties, in a special election for Canada's House of Commons.

May was elected Party Leader at a national Green Party convention in late August in Ottawa. As her own blog indicates, since then she's been shifting the focus of Canadian political debate around issues of around environment and economy. With Stephen Harper's minority Tory government abandoning Canada's committment to the Kyoto Protocol, May has been constantly in the news, demonstrating to political friend and foe alike that she knows her issues and is capable of governing (for some reason you have to reload that last link twice to see it.)

Then came an open seat and a special election in London, Ontario with the resignation of the sitting Liberal Party MP there. The election was called for November 27th (the Canadians call these 'by-elections'.) Elizabeth dove right into the fray, without a worry that a poor finish would undercut the momentum her election as Party Leader created.

In Canada's January Federal election, the Canadian Greens received 4.5% nationally. Now polls have them at 10%, in no small part to Elizabeth's impact -- and may I add, the impact of the GPC's convention being broadcast live over three days by CPAC, the Canadian C-SPAN. Kudos to Jim Harris, national Party Leader from 2002-2006, whose acumen and foresight helped the party leap forward in the 2002 and 2004 Federal Elections, to position themselves for this moment.

Elizabeth is gifted with ability to express herself brillianty, and with the savvy to swim among sharks when necessary. It was a bold move to run in this race, the kind of move a winner makes.

In a classic quote after her impressive result, Elizabeth said "Mark this down and mark it well: when someone in a future election says that we will split the vote so the worst party (whichever) can get in, point out we are not vote splitters. We are vote unifiers under a new banner."

In comparing her result with the party's numbers in same district in January Federal Election, the Green increase came from across the political spectrum - 6% from the Liberals, 6% from the Conservatives and 9% from the NDP - the latter especially significant with the potential to help the Greens pass the NDP.

"May Oui" was the chant of Elizabeth's supporters at the August Green convention, playing upon the double entendre in this English and often French-speaking country. One can just imagine what she and the Canadian Greens can accomplish with the platform of seats in the House of Commons. Here is an example of her Green Economic Development Strategy for London from her campaign.

Post-election coverage has been very positive, including

- "Green Party's showing in London's by-election hints at something big",
- "Green Party confidence grows",
- "Green machine: In light of the by-election in London, is it time to start taking the Green Party seriously?",
- "Green party 'has arrived' after finishing 2nd in byelection",
- "May won many hearts, but not enough minds",
- "Greens claim moral victory",
- "Election Results Bouy May"
- "Green Party Growing" and this pre-election piece
- "Tall Poppy Interview" in the Torontoist

For insightful post-election analysis, see Jim Harris' blog "Greens Come of Age: London Result shows we'll win seats. Liberal Strategy: Pretend to be Green."