Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman is planning to mail her updated glossy booklet of policy positions to California voters in advance of the general election, as she did before the primary election. But as Capital Notes reporter John Myers pointed out in his recent blog, one of the most noticeable changes in the new version is the candidate’s description of her position on the Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32.
According to Myers:
…turn to the section regarding the state’s landmark climate change law and you start to see a bit of a change. The two booklets spend about equal time discussing AB 32 (174 words now versus 189 back in the spring edition). But the new version drops some of the more strident rhetoric in the first edition.
Here’s the old version on AB 32’s economic impact:
“A recent study conducted by the Business School Dean of California State University, Sacramento estimated that AB 32 would cost California businesses more than $100 billion to implement and would destroy one million jobs. The state simply cannot afford this economic cost, which could reach $50,000 on average for small businesses.”That passage has been deleted and replaced with the following:
“Recent studies have shown that AB 32 will have an impact on California jobs and that further economic analysis is needed to measure the true impact of the law’s implementation on our state’s economy.’The study mentioned in the Spring 2010 Whitman mailer has been the subject of intense debate, with many AB 32 supporters and even some other academics questioning the validity of its conclusions.
Whitman, who supports a suspension of the 2006 law, has also toned down some of her anti-AB 32 rhetoric. Compare the old booklet:
“To ensure California’s climate change law does not become a dangerous job-killer, Meg has called for a one-year moratorium on specific AB 32 regulations.”…with the new version:
“To ensure California’s climate change law does not become an obstacle to job creation, Meg has called for a one-year moratorium on specific AB 32 regulations.”
So has Whitman’s position against the landmark climate and clean energy law softened somewhat since the more partisan primary, reflecting a “pivot” toward the less conservative positions demanded by voters in the general election? Or do these nuances in her new booklet simply reflect the candidate’s awareness of the latest Field poll in which California’s independents, a critical swing vote, reiterated their strong support for California’s AB 32 and the clean energy jobs it will create?
Either way, it seems to me that Whitman should strongly consider coming out against Prop 23, the November ballot initiative bought and paid for by out-of-state oil and coal companies, which, if passed, would roll back the law indefinitely. Since her multimillion-dollar campaign is largely self-financed, she doesn’t run a game-changing risk of losing critical donations from the oil and coal industries that have the biggest interest in the Dirty Energy Proposition’s passage.
And, as a recent opinion piece in the Sacramento Bee by Calbuzz editors Phil Trounstine and Jerry Roberts proposed, polls show that the candidates’ positions on the climate change law could help determine the outcome of the November election. What do you say, Meg?
This post originally appeared on the Build a Greener Governor campaign Web site.
