From the Richmond Times Dispatch:
Kaine said yesterday that he will make issues such as climate change and energy efficiency his main concerns in 2009.[...]
Looking ahead, Kaine said he plans to recommend climate-change legislation in the coming General Assembly session.
A Kaine-appointed Commission on Climate Change plans to make proposals, such as energy-saving measures, for addressing global warming in Virginia.Kaine said he also is working with Southern governors to come up with ways to reduce emissions that contribute to climate change. Several other regions already have plans, he said.
Speaking of reducing emissions, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments yesterday "propose[d] that governments, businesses and residents in the region cut greenhouse gas emissions 10 percent below forecast levels by 2012, 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050."
That sounds about right, now let's see if Virginia gets on board in a serious way.
If it is additional programs, I don't see how that will work this next year. The budget is tight; and Republicans aren't going to raise taxes. I don't think 2009 is really a year for bold new initiatives at the state level. There just isn't the money. I think the focus, and rightly so, will be on funding current state priorities like education and transportation. Education because more people out of work are turning to our community colleges and they need funds to keep up with the increased enrollment. Transportation because that employees people in the state and puts money in Virginians' pockets.
I think it is honestly a day late and dollar short. It's nice that he wants to focus on this now. But there was plenty of opportunity to address some of these things in Dominion's rush to be re-regulated. Now that America's economy is contracting, he wants to focus on something else?
THEN, you introduce basically the same thing you introduced before, but this time get a few more allies on your side before you drop the bill, let a little pressure build, hope that public opinion moves your way, and presto! You've just passed a bill that represents a fairly significant change.
Sound ridiculous? It is. But it's also how things work down there from what I understand, so we're all better off if we temper our expectations a bit. Want some examples? Alicia's Law, banning animal fighting, the transportation lockbox (which was finally passed last year). None of these things passed the first time they were introduced I don't think. So don't be so quick to criticize Gov. Kaine. There's a method to his madness that I don't believe a lot of progressive activists have really appreciated. Doesn't mean I haven't been frustrated sometimes as well, but it is important to remember what he's dealing with in the House of Delegates.
Now, none of that applies to changes that the Governor can make to the way the state does business through his use of executive orders. The commonwealth is a big player in the total usage of our resources as a state and the Governor can absolutely focus on that aspect of it.
I agree that funding education will be a huge priority, especially in light of the budget crisis, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't spend some time on this issue as well. I was NOT a big fan of the re-reg bill (which is a whole other story about lots of folks' failures), but that's not a good reason to throw up your hands and say you can't do anything, at least to my way of thinking.
As far as criticizing the Governor, I feel my point is valid. He had the opportunity to do this when times where good earlier in his administration. It is going to be much harder to refocus people's attention to this when the economy is in such a dismal state. And on this point, he had the opportunity to influence Dominion's re-regulation. He had the opportunity to oppose their new coal plant.
I should also qualify that despite my disagreements, I still like Governor Kaine. It's a tough job to be an executive and have your decisions publicly debated. And it is necessary to make compromises to accomplish greater goals. I understand and appreciate the job he has done as governor despite my differences of opinion in certain cases.
Part of the reason our economy is in rough shape is the high price of oil (until about 4 weeks ago); that wasn't the case two years ago. [As an aside, of course the situation on Wall Street and the home foreclosure crisis are another big part of that]. I think most voters now make that connection in a way they didn't before. High oil prices don't just hurt our wallets at the pump, they hurt the economy because goods are more expensive and we have less money to spend on them. How do we lower prices? Reduce demand. How do we reduce demand? Implement the sort of reforms the Governor is proposing. So I do think there's an interconnectedness there in the minds of many that wasn't really present two years ago.
One thing I would say, is that he didn't have much of a realistic opportunity to oppose the re-regulation bill because it passed with such ridiculously overwhelming majorities in both houses that it would have been a pointless expenditure of capital. The fact is, very few, if any of the legislators knew all the details of that bill. And that's a problem, admittedly.
Opposing the power plant is another matter, so fair point there. Although I don't honestly believe it would have made one whit of difference if he had proposed it, exactly BECAUSE of the re-reg. bill that put very specific requirements and limitations on what the SCC and Air Pollution Control Board could consider when permitting it.
That's a big problem, and one thing I'm sure we'd both agree on is that the Governor should propose some changes to that process. However, it was too late this time around since the process was already set in stone. All he would have done is piss off a lot of voters in that neck of the woods, who like many people throughout Appalachia tend to vote against their ultimate economic interests by continuing to fervently support coal.
Then you have the economic stimulus of green jobs from such projects as windpower.
It ain't an either/or, economy or the environment. They're related, dude.
Just as in 2008, the #1 issue on voters' minds in 2009 is going to be energy and the economy. Again prevailing will be candidates who tout the economic potential of a clean energy future. It is becoming increasingly clear to politicians and voters alike that solutions to our economic and energy crises are one and the same: create millions of new jobs, rebuild the middle class, fight global warming, secure our nation, and put America back to work by investing in clean energy.
Unfortunately, the government of Virginia cannot run in the red. We are already facing budget shortfalls. It is affecting not only the state, but localities as well. Sales tax revenue will probably continue to decline throughout 2009. As more people get laid off or take pay cuts, income tax revenue is going to decline. All that extra money the state was making from grantor's tax is gone. People are not buying new cars so personal property tax will decline. Housing prices have fallen and may not have hit bottom yet, so there goes real estate tax revenue.
We could issue bonds, but now is still really not a good time in the debt market. If we issue more debt, we could threaten our bond rating especially if we are unwilling to raise revenue. That will just mean more of our funds get eaten up by interest payments in the future. And that is a sure fire way to starve critical state programs.
So, is this priority more important than funding education, public safety, and transportation? And if you think there is money to cover additional programs, where is it?
I don't think any of my points were off base. If we come across as prioritizing this over other critical state programs, then that puts us in a losing position. Budgeting is about prioritizing, and some things you are going to have give on especially in hard times.
And last, I was kind of put off by the "they're related, dude" statement. It came across as condescending, but I don't know if that was the intention.
For absolute clarity on my point, we are at a $973 million shortfall for 2009. We project a shortfall of $1.5 billion for 2010. We are eliminating over 1,400 state positions and laying off over 500 state employees. We are reducing aid to localities. We are cutting heavily the budgets of our institutions of higher education. And this is just the General Fund. We are down money in the Transportation Fund too.
Republicans in the House of Delegates have not had a come to Jesus moment on state revenues. So, the question is what are we prioritizing to preserve. I think we are getting well ahead of ourselves if we are talking about new state programs. We are going to be fighting over what gets cut and fighting to save programs we don't want cut. And I think funding current state programs takes priority over some new initiative.
I think tx2va makes a point when s/he says, 'Look, we've gotta pay the bills on education and transportation, money that's already due BEFORE we can invest.' You wouldn't go out and buy 250 shares of a stock before you'd paid the electricity bill, right?
So while I agree that we MUST think of efficiency and other green initiatives as investments, that means that we can't INVEST in them until we've met the bare minimum we owe to various other areas, like education, public safety, mental health, etc. You don't invest when you're $973 million in the hole, you scrimp and save just to meet THAT obligation. IF after that's done, the GA is able to cut enough from the budget that there's some room left over (which happens remarkably often during times like this; you cut and cut and cut and by the time you're done, you've actually cut a little more than you needed) then that money should definitely go towards these measures. But you don't rob Peter to pay Paul, cut education or public safety funding (which are also investments), to invest in energy efficiency. That doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
By the way, I'd strongly argue that we shouldn't even be talking about cutting public safety or education until we put the estate tax on the table.
And while governments can raise money, the state government has to balance the books come the end of February (or March). We can borrow to make ends meet, and we will, but not like the federal government can. I think this conversation started out about state level legislation, right?
What I don't see is why we should spend time on this in this upcoming legislative session. It's a non-starter with Republicans in the House of Delegates. We are going to have to be pushing hard to preserve funding or at least minimize losses to existing programs. We are going to have to fight with them over using the rainy-day funds. It just seems like we would get more bang for our buck focusing on what we can save.
You know after the 2009 election are over and after we win the House of Delegates and revenue raising is on the table, that is the perfect time to address this.
I'm not saying that we don't need to do this. I'm not saying that people and businesses shouldn't invest in energy efficiency. Because they should and it will save the money over time. I'm just saying at the state level this year with all that is going on our focus should be elsewhere. We know from the exit polls that 90% of Virginians surveyed said the economy was poor or no so good. Nationally (and let's assume we are a microcosm of the nation) the economy (63%), Iraq (10%), Terrorism and Healthcare (9%), and energy policy (7%) were the issues in order that people listed as most important. And we know that traffic as an issue has not gone away for NoVA voters. And then you have the high foreclosure rates and the economic woes of Prince William county. There are a lot of big ticket items out there to focus on.
She said that there's a lot of enthusiasm for this amongst elected officials, and only three things can stand in the way:
1. The poor economy, budget crisis, and inability of the government to use funds it doesn't have.
2. Republican partisan roadblocks
3. The election taking over everything
That having been said - those are three really big things - but I say - yes we can make 2009 a triumph for Virginia and the environment!
The trick here is to monetize that savings for Virginians as tax revenue that can be re-invested in further energy efficiency. Once we solve this we can create a self-sustaining public policy for smart energy investment that doesn't require tax increases (unlikely in this environment) or offsets from other essential state services.
For example, the town of Berkeley, CA allows folks to install solar panels by opting in to a property tax increase that is offset by annual savings in their bills.
Solar electric is currently an expensive way to offset energy usage, and the payback is much quicker for less flashy investments in energy efficiency (insulation, smart thermostats, blower door tests and a couple of tubes of caulk).
Perhaps create a Virginia Energy Corps of energy efficiency installers paid for by opt-in property taxes (or some other mechanism) to spread out over the Commonwealth making the millions of homes in our state more energy efficient.