A look at the $10B climate bond California voters will decide on in November (total $40 BILLION)

First the headline claiming it is a $10 billion climate bond is a lie.  The actual cost, if approved is north of $40 billion–$10 billion for the scam artists, the ideologues and the politicians buying votes.  The other $30 billion goes to the financial institutions, like Wall Street, for loaning the money.

“The bond would be paid off by California’s general fund, which is supported, for the most part, by tax revenue. The state’s legislative analyst’s office says the estimated cost to repay the bond would be $400 million a year over the course of 40 years. 

Supporters say the bond would provide much-needed funds to accomplish California’s ambitious environmental goals, like its commitment to conserving 6 million acres of land by 2030. 

“How are we going to achieve these goals for the whole state and for 30×30 — like, 6 million acres in less than six years?” asked Ariana Rickard, the public policy and funding program manager for Sonoma Land Trust. “That’s really hard without funding.” 

They do not mention that by taking 6 million acres out of farm production there is less property tax, less corporations taxes, less jobs and higher food costs.  Add that to the $40 billion this will cost.

A look at the $10B climate bond California voters will decide on in November

 Manola Secaira, CapRadio,  7/23/24  https://www.capradio.org/articles/2024/07/23/a-look-at-the-10b-climate-bond-california-voters-will-decide-on-in-november/?utm_source=recap-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=recap-20240726&mc_cid=0af25510d9&mc_eid=0e0b4b6258

In November, California voters will decide whether to approve of a bond that would fund state climate initiatives. 

Legislators announced the $10 billion bond will appear on the November ballot as Proposition 4 earlier this month. Dozens of environmental groups advocated for it, especially in light of state budget cuts made earlier in the year that impacted climate programs.  

Many advocates are optimistic voters will approve of the bond, citing a PPIC survey published earlier this month that found 59% of California voters would likely vote “yes.” 

Assembly member Lori Wilson was one of the legislators who introduced the measure. Before it came together, she said she’d been working to introduce a bond measure that would focus on agriculture. But she and other legislators eventually decided they’d see a better chance of success if they pooled their bond proposals. 

“Once we started to see the cost of inflation, just the impact that the voters were feeling, we knew there really wasn’t an appetite for multiple bonds on the ballot and there would have to be consolidation,” Wilson said. 

The bond would be paid off by California’s general fund, which is supported, for the most part, by tax revenue. The state’s legislative analyst’s office says the estimated cost to repay the bond would be $400 million a year over the course of 40 years. 

Supporters say the bond would provide much-needed funds to accomplish California’s ambitious environmental goals, like its commitment to conserving 6 million acres of land by 2030. 

“How are we going to achieve these goals for the whole state and for 30×30 — like, 6 million acres in less than six years?” asked Ariana Rickard, the public policy and funding program manager for Sonoma Land Trust. “That’s really hard without funding.” 

Her organization has partially relied on state funding in the past. She said the funding is necessary for organizations like hers to do their work, and also if the state wants to achieve its ambitious climate goals.

“Every Californian has felt the impact of the climate crisis, whether it is wildfires, extreme heat, flooding, sea level rise,” she said. “I feel like this will resonate with voters who want to protect themselves and their communities.” 

The bond would fund a wide range of the state’s climate efforts. Its main focus areas include state water projects (like those aimed at ensuring safe drinking water for all Californians), reducing wildfire risks, coastal resilience, extreme heat mitigation, sustainable agriculture, protection of biodiversity, air quality and equitable access to outdoor spaces.  

Katelyn Roedner Sutter, the Environmental Defense Fund’s California state director, said a rejection of this funding could put the state’s goals in jeopardy.  

“We need to be not only helping communities adapt to climate change right now, but we also need to be reducing our climate pollution,” Roedner Sutter said. “This is not a problem that can wait until it’s convenient to fund in the budget.” 

Over the years of her life, Assembly member Wilson said she’s seen more and more voters support efforts like this one — especially as more people experience the impacts of climate change directly.  

“We learned about it growing up that, one day, this was going to happen,” Wilson said of the attitudes toward climate change she saw as a kid. “And now we’re in that one day, where we’re actually seeing it and seeing how it’s impacting our lives.”