As I sit down to write this, it is the day before the 2018
midterm elections. Tomorrow, voters in
Arizona will cast their ballots for governor, both houses of Congress, and the
state legislature. They will also be
asked to decide whether energy companies will be required to address climate
change from the standpoint of cleaner energy production. Even if voters approve amending the state
constitution with Proposition 127, it’s almost certain that Arizona Public Service
(APS) and their political allies will fight back.
In the world that is rapidly changing by the effects of
climate change, what is at stake?
PROFITS!!!
Let us be clear about a few points in relation to
Proposition 127, Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona. If approved, any company which plans to sell
energy within the state of Arizona will be mandated to produce at least 50% of
their energy, by the year 2030, from renewable resources such as solar, wind,
geothermal, or hydroelectric power.
Currently, most estimates place clean energy production in the state at
approximately six percent, however, there is a requirement for that production
to increase to fifteen percent (15%) by the year 2025. If energy companies do not meet the minimums
they will only have to pay a nominal amount in fines and penalties. Left unchanged, Arizona will be the lowest
producer of clean energy, along with Montana, in the entire western United
States.
Now, this is not an attempt to push my eco-socialist agenda
or argue over the details of the facts about climate change. If you do not believe in the reality of
climate change, or that our current world economic system is the driving force
behind it, then you should stop reading now.
If you are open to the idea that man-made climate change poses a threat
to the very existence of our species, then please, keep reading.
I, along with many others, have come to the conclusion that
capitalism will not be able to solve the pending environmental catastrophe
associated with climate change. There
will be no amount of technological innovations or market-based exchanges which
will reverse the two hundred year trend of pumping excessive amounts of carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere. This is
nothing new. Petroleum companies funded
studies on this very topic in the 1970s, but elected to keep the results hidden
from the public because their economic livelihoods were at risk. In 1992, representatives from around the
world met in Rio de Janeiro to discuss climate change at the very first Earth
Summit. During the past two decades the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has conducted scientific
studies to develop models of what life will be like in the very near future
under different carbon emission forecasts.
They have all come up with the same results… Fossil fuels
consumption and the modes of production under capitalism are destroying the
planet. If this sounds preposterous just
read the report from the former World Bank Chief Economist, Nicholas Stern, about downsizing and "de-growing" the economy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The leader of the the capitalist bank of the
United Nations knew that the only way possible to prevent runaway climate
change was to contract the world economy.
But, his report was rejected because capitalism is built on continued
expansion and growth and it can’t survive without it. Workers and the planet must be exploited to
maximize profits!
Returning the conversation back to the urban metropolis in
the desert where I live, nearly three quarters of the state population resides
here. Phoenix is the fifth largest city
in the United States and it’s nearly impossible to survive without utilizing an
air-conditioner for six to eight months out of the year. Houses were mandated to come equipped with
air conditioning in the 1950s, but it’s even hotter now because the entire
valley is littered with asphalt and concrete and has become an urban “heat
island.” How do we get enough power to
these homes to run those air conditioners?
APS provides electricity for 2.7 million people in the state
and they make a hefty amount of money while doing so. Pinnacle West, the company which owns APS, is
publicly traded at a little more than $80 per share and they reported a net
profit of $488 million last year. All of
this money was acquired legally, of course, and under the supervision of the
Arizona Corporation Commission. Many
voters might not be aware that APS has been dumping large amounts of money into the campaigns of the candidates who run for this regulating agency. Is it any wonder the AZ Corporation
Commissioners approved two consecutive rate hikes for consumers where some residents saw an increase of more than 20% in their monthly electricity bills?
To protect this revenue, APS called on its allies in the
state legislature to keep Prop. 127 from even reaching the ballot. As far back as April, when petition
circulators were still gathering signatures for Clean Energy for a Healthy
Arizona, APS filed a lawsuit alleging illegal activity. Their puppet whose strings were pulled to
spring into action was Vince Leach, a Republican member of the state
legislature from Tucson. It is of great
importance to remember Leach was also involved in the recent legislation to
block cities from banning "dark money" from local election and he is
also not a friend to Arizona teachers in public education. This champion of conservative ideals and big
business is also running for state senate.
Although, APS lost their lawsuit against Prop. 127 they have
launched a misinformation campaign linking higher energy costs to less money
for public schools. APS has also spent
nearly $11 million dollars fighting against Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona. However, not all of that money was spent on
court costs and state corporate commissioners.
All across the state, municipal and county governments were lobbied by APS to pass resolutions against Prop. 127.
Some of the actions may have been illegal, but APS doesn’t care because
they have people within the state attorney general’s office on their side. Another blow against Prop. 127 to scare
voters into voting against it appears on the ballot itself. An assistant within the AG's office inserted the clause "irrespective of costs to consumers" when the final initiative
descriptions were approved for printing the ballots for the general
election. This has caused such a
controversy that the state AG has threatened a lawsuit over political ads which
claim his office is "beholden to APS." Meanwhile, Arizona continues to burn fossil
fuels to produce electricity which accounts for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions in the state.
Truth be told, tomorrow’s vote should not be portrayed as
the favored analogy of David versus Goliath.
A California billionaire named Tom Steyer spent more than $8 million
dollars to fund Prop. 127. This is a
step in the right direction, however, and Arizona voters should vote YES ON
127. After the dust has settled, a
discussion should take place on how best to move all energy production to a
100% renewable standard. We should also
be building smart cities, with efficient transportation networks and food
distribution systems. This would require
collective ownership of resources and democratic control on the means of
production to build a sustainable future based on needs and not on controlling
surpluses. But, this is Arizona and
asking voters to work toward that version of the future might be asking too
much. At the moment we will have to
settle for the market-based approach to commodifying green energy, but it’s my
guess that climate change and the negative externalities associated with it
will force us to make much bolder decisions a lot sooner than we think.
What I Learned About Arizona Politics Working for Prop. 127
I moved to Arizona from California with my girlfriend during
the first week of January in 2018.
Several months removed from graduating college and without many job
prospects in the Golden State we opted for a lower cost of living in the Valley
of the Sun. We were both hired at our
first job fair interviews and the future looked very promising.
We were living with my girlfriend’s mother and youngest
sister on the west side and my morning commute was only about seventeen
miles. Phoenix is the fifth largest city
in the United States and, because most of its growth was patterned after the
suburban sprawl of Southern California, the drive would take me close to an
hour. I was working for a non-profit
teaching unaccompanied minor children who entered the U.S. without documents
how to speak english. Unfortunately,
after only two weeks on the job, I was given an administrative release. My girlfriend had already quit her position,
but she easily found a job as a substitute teacher. I, on the other hand, had to begin another
job search.
Now would be a good time to disclose that I have an arrest
record from over a decade ago for a non-violent crime. Even after ten years, during which time I
completed my probation, paid all fines and restitution, became sober, and
finished two college degrees, I can not escape the societal stigma associated
with being a former criminal. This fact
alone added some degree of difficulty in finding a job. It also overrode any benefits associated with
me receiving an honorable discharge from five years of military service after I
graduated high school.
Thankfully in Arizona, there is a law where employers are
not able to ask job applicants if they have been convicted of a crime. However, many employers bypass this obstacle
by requiring potential employees to possess a valid fingerprint clearance card
issued by the Arizona Department of Public Safety. This costs money, of course, and can run on
average about seventy five dollars for someone to acquire one. Any arrests and convictions will be discovered
by the background check and prevent most people from getting hired. I was unable to obtain a fingerprint
clearance because of my arrest for giving a false statement to a law
enforcement officer in 2008.
After a few unsuccessful interviews, and a two-day stint
canvassing for a “progressive” candidate for U.S. Congress, I was finally hired
by another non-profit organization in the beginning of March. This group’s primary goal was to register
Latino voters and run public information workshops on immigration law and
naturalization. Because I had spent many
months as a volunteer on political campaigns and voter registration in various
elections in California, I had acquired a skill set which was well-suited for
this particular job. I was also an eligible
and registered voter who could speak spanish and I owned a vehicle. In less than a month I was promoted I
financed a new vehicle which I would use to transport a team to various sites
around town to register voters. My luck
would turn before the next week because my immediate supervisor quit
unexpectedly and I was forced to give up my promotion and position as team
leader.
I quickly transitioned to a position as a petition signature
gatherer for another non-profit political organization which was advocating for
clean energy legislation in Arizona. For
the next seven weeks I would spend my days in various grocery store parking
lots or walking through downtown Phoenix asking people to sign a petition “for
a clean and healthy Arizona.” The
organization was a nationwide staffing agency for political canvassers that had
been hired by a coalition of progressive non-profits (including my former
employer) in the local area. This
coalition had received about $8 million from a California billionaire who had
also founded a non-profit to register 11 million new voters before the 2018
midterm elections. I was paid $15 an
hour with a $100 weekly bonus for being a driver and I was expected to collect
on average 65 signatures a day. When I
started there were three offices in the Phoenix metro area and two other
offices in Flagstaff and Tucson.
In the several weeks I worked for this organization, I
noticed the office had a high turnover rate for workers and by the time I left
I was one of the most senior staff members.
As far as the work itself, some days were better than others. Especially in the beginning when almost
everyone would sign, but as the campaign progressed it became a monotonous
grind akin to selling products door-to-door.
I can’t begin to count the number of times I was cussed out by people or
called a communist. I had people lecture
me about economics, the coal industry, and religion while denying the realities
of climate change. I quit my position in
mid-May right before the days of 100 plus degrees set in. By this time another petition company was
hired by the local energy company to run a misinformation campaign to confuse
voters into thinking they had already signed our petition. Our staff members were harrassed by this new
company which would send petitioners out to follow our groups as they worked
high pedestrian traffic locations. Many
of my co-workers were lured away to this organization by the promises of higher
wages and hundreds of dollars in recruitment bonuses.
I had assumed the petition might not get enough signatures
because it was designed to be an amendment to the state constitution. This would require a total of 225,000 valid
signatures to be submitted before the first week of July and, because there
were two opposing petitions running simultaneously, I was sure that we would
lose signatures. Many people, including
circulators, were not aware that a person signing a petition twice would
invalidate both signatures. I had
already moved on to my next employment at an educational museum and followed
the news about this particular petition as well as the teacher-led petition to
restore education funding by raising taxes on those with incomes over $250,000
a year. When the clean energy petition
was allowed to be on the November ballot as Prop. 127, I was amazed that
approximately 480,000 voters had signed in support. However, the more advanced political tricks
were about to begin.
The following month I was subpoenaed to testify in court
about my employment as a petition circulator.
Apparently, the energy company hired a law firm to represent a pair of
politicians who were friendly to their industry and this firm had won the favor
of a local judge who ruled they had a right to question every circulator in
this case. They were challenging the
validity of the petition signatures submitted to the Secretary of State. I was one of almost a thousand people who had
to show up at court and stand in line to be processed through a single entrance. If anyone left, or did not show up, their
signatures would be discarded. Once we
were allowed into the waiting areas we spent the entire first day registering
our attendance. We were then assigned to
appear on one of the next four days of testimony. Again, if someone did not return to court for
testimony on their assigned day, the signatures they collected would be
discarded. When I returned on my
assigned day in court, I was dismissed sometime after mid-day because there was
only enough time for testimony from about ten to fifteen witnesses. When the case concluded, Prop. 127 was
allowed to be on the ballot because the challengers could not prove a
significant number of signatures were invalid.
Coincidentally, this ruling was issued a week after another court had
ruled that the education petition approved for the ballot was to be
stricken. That decision was rendered
because voters were possibly confused about the rate for the tax increase
needed to fund the education budget. The
petition stated there would be a “one percent” increase and not a “one
percentage point” raise in taxes.
Unfortunately, this is how the system works. The bulwarks for the defense of capitalism
insulate the ruling class from abiding by the collective decision-making
process of the people. We only think we
can change things by the political process under the current rule of the two
party bureaucracy of capitalism.
Over the next two months the local media ran stories for and
against Prop. 127. Giant yellow campaign
signs at intersections tell voters that “higher energy bills means less money
for Arizona schools.” The Palo Verde
Generating Station, which operates a nuclear power plant in the valley, has
employees giving educational demonstrations about the benefits and safety of
nuclear power. All the while they are
wearing large yellow buttons which state “No on 127.” The insanity doesn’t stop there. When the ballot was sent off to be printed,
the Arizona state attorney general’s office had one of their senior attorneys
on staff insert the phrase “irrespective of cost to consumers” in the
descriptive title to Prop. 127.
Most voters, if they are like me, are just ready for the
election to be over with. Outside of the
continuous news cycles about the degenerate in the White House, or the promise
of a “blue wave,” there are battles shaping up within the states over education
and clean energy. Unfortunately, there are
very few candidates running who are not tied to the two political cartels of
power and money. Voters can either
choose the blue team or the red one, but no one else. In the race for U.S. Senate here, the
self-proclaimed member of the green team dropped out and told her supporters to
vote blue. It is not enough to simply
vote for the Democratic Party candidate.
Community groups and organizations need to continue to hold them
accountable to voters and the constituents they claim to represent. Only then will voters see that both major
parties are the same when pushed to confront the economic programs of the
ruling class. Democrats and Republicans
will always side with the wealthy elite because they want to keep their
campaign contributions intact. Big
business allies of the two parties of capital are funneling millions of dollars
into the campaigns of their preferred candidates or propositions. In some cases even contributing directly to
the political parties themselves. The
individual voter, or groups of voters in a community, have limited resources to
challenge the powers that be. While
working families and the poor struggle to find work, pay rent, and put food on
the table, decisions which directly affect their lives are being made without
their consent or input. Case in point,
this particular clean energy initiative was never a grassroots movement from
the start. But, it does address the need
for our society to transition energy production into the twenty first century
with cleaner forms of fuel. Win or lose,
after tomorrow’s vote, we will have to decide how best to address the
existential crisis of climate change and perhaps begin to question the logic of
relying on these top-down forms of political action in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment