State of California secondary Archives: on Energy & Oil


Jimmy Gomez: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020

In the Assembly, Jimmy advanced bills to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Jimmy will continue to fight for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, investing in mass transit, smart development and will make fighting the effects of climate change a priority--this includes fighting Obama Administration policy rollbacks by climate change deniers from the Trump Administration and holding them responsible.
Source: 2017 CA House campaign website, JimmyGomezForCongress.com Jun 6, 2017

David Hadley: Ban off-shore oil drilling; require 50% wind and solar

A fiscal conservative, David Hadley is against the crony capitalists who receive subsidies, tax credits and carbon offsets at the expense of hard-working families.

In the Assembly, David Hadley was one of only two legislators in his party who voted to require 50% of all electrical power to be generated from green sources like solar and wind.

David Hadley strongly favors keeping a ban on off-shore drilling and making sure oil companies adhere to strict safety standards-- that's why he voted to mandate that coastal oil pipelines must have automatic shut-off valves and modern leak detection equipment.

Source: 2018 CA gubernatorial campaign website DavidHadley.com May 2, 2017

Nanette Barragan: Climate change is an urgent environmental problem

Nanette understands that climate change is an urgent environmental problem and she intends to act accordingly. She will fight to combat climate change and work to transition us to clean, renewable energy. Besides closing tax loopholes and ending subsidies for toxic polluters, Nanette knows we have to employ creative strategies to attract and incentivize clean green businesses to locate in the 44th District.
Source: 2016 CA House campaign website BarraganForCongress.com Nov 8, 2016

Jon Huntsman: Gas is $13/gal if we count cost of troop deployments

BACHMANN: [to Huntsman]: The day that President Obama took office, gasoline was $1.79 a gallon. Let's have a goal of bringing it down.

Q: Everybody would like $2 gas, but is it realistic for a president to promise that?

HUNTSMAN: Of course not. We live in the free-market economy. I'm not sure that dictating prices is going to get you anywhere. But let's face the reality of where we are. Presidential leadership [means] tell us where we think we can find that which we have and convert it into jobs and expanding our industrial base, and reminding the American people that they're not paying $4 per gallon for gas. When you add up the cost of troop deployments, when you add up the cost of keeping the sea lanes open for the importation of imported oil, the bulk and distribution and terminal costs, it's $13 a gallon. And I say the American people have had enough. We need a president who's going to provide a little bit of leadership in getting us some direction and opening up the opportunities.

Source: 2011 GOP debate in Simi Valley CA at the Reagan Library Sep 7, 2011

Michele Bachmann: Goal is to keep gas prices low, like $1.79 a gallon

Energy is one of the greatest opportunities for job creation that we have in the United States. We just learned today that if the federal government would pull back on all of the regulatory restrictions on American energy production, we could see 1.2 million jobs created in the United States.

We could also see created over 50 percent more American energy production. And we could also see $800 billion more revenue coming into the United States government.

Don't forget the day that President Obama took office, gasoline was $1.79 a gallon. It's entirely possible for us to get back to inexpensive energy.

The problem is, energy is too high. Let's have a goal of bringing it down because every time gasoline increases 10 cents a gallon, that's $14 billion in economic activity that every American has taken out of their pockets. This is a great solution, and this is the place to start with American job creation.

Source: 2011 GOP debate in Simi Valley CA at the Reagan Library Sep 7, 2011

Rick Perry: Don't put economy in jeopardy based on unsettled science

Q: You said scientists are coming forward to question the idea that human activity is behind climate change.

PERRY: The science is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans' economy in jeopardy based on scientific theory that's not settled yet, to me, is just nonsense. I mean, Galileo got outvoted for a spell. But asking us to cut back in areas that would have monstrous economic impact on this country is not good economics and I will suggest to you is not necessarily good science. Find out what the science truly is before you start putting the American economy in jeopardy.

Q: Are there specific theories that you've found especially compelling?

PERRY: Let me tell you what I find compelling, is what we've done in the state of Texas. Not by some scientist somewhere saying, "Here is what we think is happening out there." The science is not settled on whether or not the climate change is being impacted by man to the point where we're going to put America's economics in jeopardy.

Source: 2011 GOP debate in Simi Valley CA at the Reagan Library Sep 7, 2011

Ron Paul: I can get you a gallon of gas for a silver dime

BACHMANN: [to Paul]: The day that Pres. Obama took office, gasoline was $1.79 a gallon. Let's have a goal of bringing it down.

Q: Everybody would like $2 gas, but is it realistic for a president to promise that?

PAUL: I do want to address the subject of $2 oil or gasoline, because I can do it much better than that. I can get you a gallon of gasoline for a dime. You can buy a gallon of gasoline today for a silver dime. A silver dime is worth $3.50. It's all about inflation and too many regulations.

Source: 2011 GOP debate in Simi Valley CA at the Reagan Library Sep 7, 2011

Barbara Boxer: Work with China on global warming, but California leads

Fiorina: I believe AB 32 [funding green energy R&D] is a bad idea because to deal with global warming requires a serious global solution. Scientists agree that a single state--or a single nation--acting alone can have no impact on global warming. I would immediately engage in serious bilateral discussions with China, a nation that uses more coal than we do, but also that researches more into clean coal.

Q: Senator Boxer, you said that if California doesn't take the lead, then China and others will. But doesn't Ms. Fiorina have a point when she says that the global approach would be more effective?

Boxer: Our president has met with China; they've reached some tentative agreements. The fact is, we have to act. California is not a state that sits around and lets anybody else lead. That's why I so strongly oppose Prop 23 [which would block AB 32]. It is shocking to me to see someone try to get to the US Senate from California, who would turn her back on the environment.

Source: 2010 CA Senate general election Debate on KPCC Sep 29, 2010

Carly Fiorina: Dealing with global warming requires a global solution

Q: You opposed Proposition 23, and that will stop AB 32 which would develop a new industry dedicated to green energy and put California back in the front of the country?

Fiorina: We are falling behind in energy innovation. We spend less on energy Research & Development than many other nations in the world. We must be the leader in innovation, and we must be the leader in clean green technologies. And we are not on a path to do so, because our federal government doesn't spend as much on federally-funded energy R&D. Our R&D tax credit is now 17th in the world. However, the reason I believe AB 32 is a bad idea is because to deal with global warming requires a serious global solution. Scientists agree that a single state--or a single nation--acting alone can have no impact on global warming. I would immediately engage in serious bilateral discussions with China, a nation that uses more coal than we do, but also that researches more into clean coal.

Source: 2010 CA Senate general election Debate on KPCC Sep 29, 2010

Barbara Boxer: Prop. 23: California clean energy policy creates jobs here

Fiorina criticized Boxer's efforts to pass federal legislation that would have cut greenhouse gas emissions through a program of emission permits. Boxer's bill, Fiorina said, "was completely the wrong track" and would have cost "trillions of dollars in lost economic output [and] millions of jobs."

But Fiorina declined to take a position on Proposition 23, the November ballot measure that would suspend California's landmark global warming law until unemployment drops to 5.5% or lower for four consecutive quarters.

Boxer seized on her opponent's reticence, using it as an excuse to return to Fiorina's record at HP: "If you can't take a stand on Prop. 23 I don't know what you will take a stand on," Boxer said. "If we overturn California's clean energy policies that's going to mean that China takes the lead away from us with solar, that Germany takes the lead away from us with wind. I want those jobs created here in America."

Source: Los Angeles Times coverage of 2010 CA Senate Debate Sep 2, 2010

Carly Fiorina: Examine the science; US can't act alone on global warming

Fiorina did not directly answer when asked whether she believes global warming is real. "We should always have the courage to examine the science," she said, "but all scientists agree on this: The only way to impact global warming is to act globally. A state acting alone will make no difference." She criticized Boxer's efforts to pass federal legislation that would have cut greenhouse gas emissions through a program of emission permits. Boxer's bill, Fiorina said, "was completely the wrong track" and would have cost "trillions of dollars in lost economic output [and] millions of jobs."

But Fiorina declined to take a position on Proposition 23, the November ballot measure that would suspend California's landmark global warming law until unemployment drops to 5.5% or lower for four consecutive quarters.

Boxer seized on her opponent's reticence: "If you can't take a stand on Prop. 23 I don't know what you will take a stand on," Boxer said. "I want those [clean energy] jobs created here in America."

Source: Los Angeles Times coverage of 2010 CA Senate Debate Sep 2, 2010

  • The above quotations are from State of California Politicians: secondary Archives.
  • Click here for definitions & background information on Energy & Oil.
  • Click here for other issues (main summary page).
2016 Presidential contenders on Energy & Oil:
  Republicans:
Gov.Jeb Bush(FL)
Dr.Ben Carson(MD)
Gov.Chris Christie(NJ)
Sen.Ted Cruz(TX)
Carly Fiorina(CA)
Gov.Jim Gilmore(VA)
Sen.Lindsey Graham(SC)
Gov.Mike Huckabee(AR)
Gov.Bobby Jindal(LA)
Gov.John Kasich(OH)
Gov.Sarah Palin(AK)
Gov.George Pataki(NY)
Sen.Rand Paul(KY)
Gov.Rick Perry(TX)
Sen.Rob Portman(OH)
Sen.Marco Rubio(FL)
Sen.Rick Santorum(PA)
Donald Trump(NY)
Gov.Scott Walker(WI)
Democrats:
Gov.Lincoln Chafee(RI)
Secy.Hillary Clinton(NY)
V.P.Joe Biden(DE)
Gov.Martin O`Malley(MD)
Sen.Bernie Sanders(VT)
Sen.Elizabeth Warren(MA)
Sen.Jim Webb(VA)

2016 Third Party Candidates:
Gov.Gary Johnson(L-NM)
Roseanne Barr(PF-HI)
Robert Steele(L-NY)
Dr.Jill Stein(G,MA)
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to:
1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140
E-mail: [email protected]
(We rely on your support!)

Page last updated: Feb 11, 2018