It’s Down to the Wire for Propositions 23 & 26

With Election Day only hours away, RAMP asks you to continue to spread the word about the importance of voting NO tomorrow on Propositions 23 and 26. In this early edition of RAMP Digest, we are pleased to again post summaries of Propositions 23 and 26.  We also provide a link to “Paying for Pollution: Proposition 26 and its Potential Impacts on State Environmental and Public Health Protections in California”, a publication from the UCLA School of Law and “People and Power – California: Global Warming Showdown” a short documentary on Proposition 23 by filmmakers Joe Rubin and Dan McKinney.

We oppose Propositions 23 and 26 because protecting polluters would result in dirtier air and cause more asthma-related hospital and emergency department visits. These two initiatives sponsored by oil and tobacco interests on November’s ballot threaten to undermine our efforts to ensure safe schools, healthy homes, and clean air.

Proposition 23
This proposition, which is largely funded by Texas oil companies Valero and Tesoro, would effectively repeal California’s landmark law to address climate change (AB 32) allowing oil companies to pollute our air, make us sick, and reap record profits. Many health organizations, hospitals and medical professionals oppose Proposition 23. We must protect California’s clean energy and clean air standards that continue to prevent illness and death from air pollution – a virulent asthma trigger. For more information on the No on Prop 23 campaign, click here.

Proposition 26
If passed, this proposition would undermine the concept that the polluter pays and, as a result, would let oil, tobacco and alcohol industries off the hook for paying for the harm they cause. Nearly all of the efforts to regulate, prevent, and mitigate the harmful effects of polluting industries are paid for through fees on those industries. Prop 26 would reclassify such fees as taxes that require a two-thirds vote of the state legislature or the local electorate, making assessing such fees nearly impossible. This would have a significant impact on broad regulatory efforts, including reducing diesel pollution and ensuring healthy rental housing.

Additionally, Prop 26 would retroactively affect legitimate fees set by the state in 2010 creating an immediate $1 billion dollar hole in the state budget that will have to be filled by tax payers or by cuts to other programs.  For more information on the No on Prop 26 campaign, click here.