Janet Reilly's Environmental Plan:
Greening the Golden State

To state the issue as clearly as I can: we have a moral responsibility to be prudent stewards of the environment. Our natural resources are the most important legacy that we leave to our children and our grandchildren. Unfortunately, we are largely squandering these natural wonders. Too often, a false dichotomy of the environment versus the economy has been drawn. Through a combination of ignorance, shortsightedness, and greed, over the past century we have polluted our air and our water, paved over our plains and our coastline, and even poisoned ourselves.

The reality is that a healthy economy requires a healthy environment, and a healthy environment helps to spur and sustain a thriving economy. Recent work in economics has estimated the value of natural ecosystem goods and services (clean water, clean air, healthy forests and fisheries) at over $30 trillion, nearly double the size of gross world product (Costanza, 1997). Recognizing and protecting these resources is essential to preserving and enhancing our quality of life.

I am going to Sacramento for one reason: to fight for a healthy California. A healthy California and healthy communities cannot be achieved without dramatically restoring the health of our environment, and I look forward to being an effective champion for environmental issues. As an elected representative of the public, it will be my responsibility to help to protect the broader public interest. There are several clear areas where greater efforts must be made to protect our environment:

• Addressing climate change through energy independence
• Open space protection and habitat restoration
• Clean air
• Environmental justice
• Protecting the Pacific
• Healthy watersheds
• Healthy farms and forests
• Resource conservation

MY PLEDGE:
My campaign pledges to be carbon neutral.  We have already offset both the direct and indirect carbon emissions, and my Assembly office will continue to do so.

My vision: California should be a world leader in addressing climate change. By transitioning our high-tech economy toward efficiency and alternative energy, we can reduce pollution while generating jobs and revenue.

Climate change is the fundamental environmental threat facing us in our lifetime. Over the last thirty years, we have come to recognize that human emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and a basket of other greenhouse gasses are slowly cooking the atmosphere. Today, the scientific evidence is irrefutable: 2005 was the single hottest year in history; the Arctic’s sea ice is melting away; and the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation, which drives global ocean currents, has measurably slowed (BBC, 2005). The international panel of scientists that makes predictions on climate change expects increased coastal loss, increased heat deaths, worsened air quality, regional drought and flooding. Locally, our wine-producing regions are expected to suffer from changes in weather patterns, our ski resorts will face reduced snow pack, and our communities and homes may be more vulnerable to wildfires (IPCC, 2001; Cordova, 2006).

Climate change is happening, and we have only seen the smallest tip of it. This state needs to act now, for several reasons. Not only is it in our best interests to find a positive solution, but we are also as responsible for the problem as anyone else. California, with just 0.5% of the world’s population, has the 7th largest economy in the world. If we cannot afford to take action, who can?

My campaign pledges to be carbon neutral. We have already offset both the direct and indirect carbon emissions, and my Assembly office will continue to do so. By donating to a non-profit organization that invests in renewable energy, conservation, and efficiency projects (CarbonFund.org), we are able to guarantee that we are part of the solution and not just another talk shop.

On a governmental level, my goal is to address each of the major sectors of the economy contributing to climate change:

Transportation: The state’s transportation sector accounts for nearly 60% of our carbon dioxide load. As such, reducing exhaust pipe emissions needs to be the centerpiece of any climate strategy.

• Investments in efficient public transportation should be pursued at all costs. High speed rail, bike and pedestrian-friendly planning, bus transportation, BART and other infrastructure investments are absolutely essential.
• Smart Growth planning must be implemented. Without infill and more intelligent planning, urban sprawl will further contribute to transportation emissions, congestion, and air pollution over the next 50 years.  We must also understand that without an aggressive state effort to promote affordable housing, we will be tolerating urban sprawl.
• The Pavley Bill (AB 1493) has set the legal framework for reducing carbon emissions from cars starting in 2009. We need to aggressively defend this landmark bill from the legal challenges being mounted by the auto industry, and make sure that the Air Resources Board creates aggressive regulations that protect our air quality. 
• Government procurement of vehicles must be part of the solution, not part of the problem. For air quality and economic reasons, government vehicles should be among the most efficient vehicles on the road. We should examine the possibility of further reducing state transportation emissions to Kyoto protocol targets via offset projects.
• The airline and shipping industries are sectors where solutions have not been explored. California should initiate a broader national/international dialogue on how to address these issues.
• We need to support efforts on the federal level to increase CAFE standards, along with broader climate initiatives such as the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act.

Industry: Utilities and industry account for another quarter of the state’s carbon emissions. In addition, the state imports considerable amounts of carbon-producing electricity. We need to limit emissions growth in this sector.

• Already, the New England governors have acted to create a cap-and-trade system called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The Western Governors should form a comparable Western Greenhouse Gas Initiative (WGGI) to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and large industrial plants. Flexible trading would allow the system to be economically efficient and would create incentives for renewable power producers.
• Modifying the RGGI scheme by auctioning carbon permits would generate hundreds of millions of dollars in much-needed state revenue, while producing thousands of jobs (Cordova, 2006).
• We must invest in alternative energy sources and clean technology.  California could and should be the leader in adopting the principles of the Apollo Report as official State policy.  By investing in alternative energy and green gazelles (small growing environmentally focused businesses), we can, as a state, become energy independent, and we can do it by harnessing wind, solar, and biomethane power supplies and through technological innovation.  Investment in alternative energy will not only prevent future blackouts, it is the best opportunity we have to reverse environmental degradation, improve the health of our citizens and stimulate our economy by producing jobs and revenue. 
• Treasurer Angelides’ Green Wave Initiative is a first step to spur investment.  I would also support a statewide bond measure to invest in clean technology and green gazelles that would create thousands of good, sustainable jobs in California. This bond should be similar to the Stem Cell bond (with some changes to increase greater public accountability). This is an existing, viable model of California investing in the technologies of the future to improve our health and strengthen our economy.

Residential and Commercial Emissions: Climate change is each of our responsibilities. We need to make sure that our homes and businesses are not wasting energy.

• I applaud the PUC for approving the Million Solar Roofs Initiative and subsidies for solar panels on low-income housing. This plan will install solar energy on a million buildings by 2017 and it will generate 3,000 megawatts of electricity—the equivalent of six large power plants. But we need to do more. Solar panel owners should be allowed to sell their unused production back to the grid in order to encourage conservation.
• We must phase in requirements that new developments be built to LEED or other green standards. Nationwide, buildings account for 65% of all energy consumption, 30% of GHG emissions and raw material use, and 30% of waste output. Something must be done to reduce the environmental impact of our built landscape. New buildings should take advantage of the latest advances in building science, materials, and green design.
• Similarly, energy pricing should be changed to reflect time-of-day costs, encouraging consumers to follow more efficient practices.
• State appliance efficiency standards should continue to be tightened, eliminating wasteful practices such as “standby” energy consumption.

[back to top]

My vision: A state where our grandchildren can experience a landscape free of strip malls without having to travel to a national forest.

In the same way that climate change is slowly changing the planet as we know it, the insidious loss of California’s natural habitats is scarring the face of our great state. Our environmental health depends on preserving, protecting, and restoring the natural beauty and habitat of our state.  We cannot effectively protect our environment until we create a master plan that addresses long-term strategies for reducing sprawl and controlling growth.

There are 34 million Californians today. Studies show that we will grow by more than 10 million people over the next fifteen years, and by another 10 million in the following 15 years – and yet we have no master plan to prepare for that growth (Census, 2005). To date, we have accommodated population growth through sprawling low-density development. Our cities have become decentralized mazes, ringed by housing developments and strip malls, and linked by congested freeways.

This poor planning harms not just ecosystems, but air quality and, ultimately, the quality of life of those who have to commute increasingly long distances between jobs. People who live in sprawling communities are exposed to more air and water pollution and are less physically active (as they spend more time in their cars) than people who live in healthy communities.  As a result, people living in sprawling areas are more likely to be obese, more likely to suffer from high blood pressure, more likely to be exposed to asthma and cancer-inducing particulates, and more likely to die in traffic accidents (42,000 people die nationwide each year).

To ensure that we protect our habitat, wildlife and prevent sprawl, I have two priorities:

1) We must protect our remaining open space from poorly planned development.

2) We must restore degraded areas so that they can contribute to the health of our environment and our communities.

To fight the sprawl that has crept out of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego into the Central Valley and along our highways, we need to have both a vision and a detailed and articulate plan. Elements of such a plan include:

• A major boost to public transportation, more affordable housing near jobs and infill housing that reduces sprawl and congestion.  A combination of sticks and carrots should be encouraged, such as urban line limits, growth boundaries, greenbelts and incentives for local communities to build near existing transit corridors and improve public transportation.
• Healthy communities are the result of careful transit-first planning and application of Smart Growth principles including infill development, mixed use zoning, and appropriate density targets. We must prioritize bicycling, walking, and public transit.  Bike lanes are great, but we need to also build secure indoor bike storage in or near where people work.  Offices should be built to include employee showers to make biking to work more feasible. The recent spate of pedestrian deaths in San Francisco is a sobering reminder that more has to be done to protect people who walk.  Appropriate traffic calming measures, including more stop signs and clearer crosswalks, must be encouraged.  Where appropriate, car-free districts should be encouraged.
• A master plan is critical for outlining state recreational and wildlife needs including urban growth boundaries around critical habitat. We must prioritize habitat for native species and prevent encroachment wherever possible from non-native species.  Protecting and restoring key migratory corridors for birds and mammals, strategically increasing our coastal marine reserves and restoration of our wetlands should be priorities.
• Developers that convert land from agricultural zoning or open space to commercial or residential zoning should pay a fair but significant conversion fee.  We should also consider an open space fee on developers who start new projects in the state.  Many local governments currently use this mechanism to fund open space preservation – we should consider leveraging this same tool on the state level.
• Supporting sustainable local agriculture and family farms, which are often our first lines of defense against rampant development. The US loses 1.2 million acres of farmland to urban sprawl each year (AFT, 2005). We should protect our local farmers. This would include using state food purchasing protocols as well as leveraging legislation such as the Williamson Act, which should be protected, strengthened and extended in areas where open space is most threatened.
• Encouraging the Coastal Commission to protect the coast to the maximum extent possible.  That starts by making sure those who serve on the Commission are dedicated to the public and conservation, not to developers with financial interests. For example, a developer in Carmel wants to destroy a 17,000-tree Monterey Pine Forest along the coast to build a golf course.  The Monterey Pine is a rare native species and the threatened forest is one of the few remaining of its kind.  The Coastal Commission should reject this proposal.
• Property rights advocates are trying to leverage an increasingly conservative federal bench to challenge the constitutionality of the coastal commission. We must fight this at every level.
• Ceasing dam construction where the environmental costs outweigh the benefits.  I applaud the successful efforts to kill the fourth pipeline.  We cannot increase diversion of water from the Tuolumne.
• Lastly we should continue to support expansion of innovative private-public efforts to protect open spaces including conservation easements and investment in land trusts.

In addition to protecting our remaining open space, we should dedicate ourselves to restoring degraded areas to a cleaner and more functional state. Much of the state’s natural habitat has already been lost. For example, less than 5% of original wetlands and 1% of native grasslands remain in the Sacramento Valley (ROC, 2006). Several runs of California’s chinook salmon and steelhead are listed as endangered, due in large to habitat loss (DFG, 2006).

• We need to envision a restored San Francisco Bay and Delta. The region has been terribly impacted by draining, diking, wetland loss, development, pollution, and invasive species. The vast majority of the San Francisco Bay’s wetlands have been drained. The South Bay Salt Restoration Project is an example of the type of habitat restoration we need.
• The CALFED Bay-Delta program has withered on the vine. We should not abandon the project but look at the results of the independent review to craft a 10-year plan that will revitalize the effort.
• Superfund site cleanup at locations such as the Navy’s Site 25 at Moffett Field must continue.
• We should restore and protect our native oak forests.

[back to top]

My vision: Air that is safe to breathe in every single community in California.

Environmental toxins endanger the health of every Californian. We need to make greater strides to address air quality, particularly with respect to ozone, particulate matter, and toxic compounds. Pollution has been linked to respiratory disease, asthma, cancer, and premature death. These effects are disproportionately felt by the poor and disadvantaged, who often lack adequate medical care and work in areas where they may be exposed to worse air quality.

At present, the air quality in our state is appalling. Los Angeles, Bakersfield and Fresno are the three worst metropolitan areas in the U.S. for particulate matter, severely exceeding the health standards set for ozone and particulates. California has the top four most polluted counties in the entire U.S. (Riverside, Fresno, Kern, and LA), and 10 of the top 13. Similarly the San Francisco metropolitan area ranked among the worst 25 cities in the U.S. for particle pollution. Over five million California children breathe air that fails federal health standards for ozone pollution. Overall, 32 out of 52 California counties received failing grades in 2005 from the American Lung Association (ALA, 2005).

Governor Schwarzenegger has promised to clean up California’s air 50% by 2010. To meet this goal, substantial new steps need to be taken.

• There are 25 million vehicles in California, responsible for more than half of the state’s smog-forming emissions (ARB, 2005). By 2010, we will add another 3 million vehicles, and drive an additional 100 million miles per year. We need to support the Air Resources Board’s implementation of the Low Emissions Vehicles (LEV II) and Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV) program (as modified in 1998), which represents our most important tool for fighting smog in both the short- and long-term. Additional steps to reduce traffic such as congestion pricing and efficiency-based vehicle licensing fees should be considered.
• I am a supporter of high-speed rail and Smart Growth planning around a new rail line.  I am not afraid - in fact, I look forward to championing a long-term vision for planning and infrastructure investment.
• Locally, while I am open to new funding sources to extend BART, I think we will have a much faster impact on our environment and quality of life by extending CalTrain to downtown San Francisco, electrifying the CalTrain line and increasing service.  We need to invest precious first dollars in the places where we’ll serve the greatest number of people. 
• At the federal level, we should lobby to support stronger CAFE standards.
• Diesel vehicles account for nearly 80% of particulate matter from mobile sources in California. In 2000, we emitted 28,000 tons of diesel particulates (ARB, 2003). Diesel busses should be retrofitted to filter disease-causing particulates, electrified, or replaced when possible with cleaner burning engines or alternative fuels.  If diesel must be used for busses, biodiesel – which recycles waste – should be used as an alternative to traditional diesel when feasible. Low Emission School Bus Funding should be increased to replace every pre-1977 school bus and retrofit every 1977-1987 model year school bus with diesel particulate filters.
• Legislation is badly needed to reduce diesel pollution from off-road equipment at ports, rail yards and construction sites. Off-road equipment accounts for a substantial portion of particulate emissions in California. Adding filters to construction equipment is a relatively cost-effective solution, given the health care costs of poor air quality in California.
• State transportation funding must also address the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians by funding bike lanes, safer cross walks, and other appropriate infrastructure investments.

[back to top]

My Vision: A California where all communities are clean enough to raise healthy children.

State law defines environmental justice as “fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Unfortunately, “fair” is far from the situation we see today. The negative consequences of pollution and development are typically borne by those least able to bear their costs, particularly the poor and communities of color.   As in all environmental questions, we must apply the Precautionary Principle to issues of environmental justice. I will fight every day to make sure that all of California’s residents have access to a healthy life.

I am ashamed that the Bay Area is home to the Hunters Point Power Plant, the Navy Yards and the sewage plant. It is no wonder why the 12th Assembly District holds some of the highest levels of asthma and breast cancer in the nation.

• Environmental injustice must be addressed head on. Locally, we must close down the Bayview Hunters Point Power Plant, and address the naval yards and sewage treatment plants. Toxic emissions from the power plants may cause cancer and diseases of the heart and lungs. We are just beginning to understand the horrible effects that these same emissions have on neurological and psychological disorders.
• As previously discussed, numerous steps need to be taken to improve air quality, particularly reducing diesel emissions that have such a detrimental effect on our communities. Retrofitting diesel busses, creating stricter standards for vessels and trains, and tightening emissions requirements for diesel trucks and off-road equipment are essential. We must, when possible, phase out or convert diesel bus engines to cleaner fuels or electrification, particularly when we know that emissions are causing alarming asthma and heart disease rates among our most disadvantaged populations. In the heavily trafficked community of West Oakland, diesel emissions per square mile are nearly 100 times the state average, such that children in this community breathe air six times as polluted with particulates as children in wealthier Oakland neighborhoods. We urgently need action.
• I support creating a toxin tax on companies who continue to release pollutants known to contribute to California’s dire breast cancer and asthma rates, some of the highest in the nation. We should be taxing waste, not work. The revenues from such a fee could be used to offset other taxes or pay for any number of much needed programs such as education, health care or environmental remediation.
• I support greater state investment in clean up of urban “Brownfields.”
• We should use the power of the state budget to make sure that state-purchased food (at universities, schools, etc) is California-grown, toxin-free and produced through environmentally sustainable practices. I believe that this proposal will create healthier children, reduce state health care costs and reduce water pollution. It would also cut down on pollution from trucks, ships and planes that are shipping processed foods from across the country and around the world. Our children should be eating apples from Sonoma, not South Africa.
• Epidemiological models predict that the health effects of climate change (heat deaths, asthma) will disproportionately fall on communities of color. We need to be proactive not only in addressing climate change, but also in improving medical access in these communities.
• I support programs that hold manufacturers responsible when they create products that are not safe for our environment, such as mitigation fees on companies that manufacture products with unsafe substances. Revenues from the tax should go directly to pay for cleanup and safe recycling or disposal of hazardous materials.
• It is irresponsible to rush to develop land that has not been adequately restored and returned to a healthy status.
• Lead paint removal and asbestos abatement must be priorities. Children under the age of 3 in deteriorating neighborhoods are most at risk for toxic lead exposure. The state and Federal EPA should continue to remove contaminated paints from homes.
• Statewide, we need to examine ways to protect our largely Latino population in the Central Valley from pesticide drift. California uses over 300 million pounds of these chemicals each year, including neurotoxic pesticides such as chlorpyrifos and diazinon.

[back to top]

My vision: Pristine ocean habitats that support healthy fisheries, safeguarded by a network of functional marine reserves.

Much of California’s “environment” is underwater. The majority of our biological diversity is found off our shores in the nearby Pacific, from majestic humpback whales and Cannery Row’s sardines, to kelp forests and floating dinoflagellates. Hidden by ocean depths, the Pacific seascape contains vast undersea canyons and cold-water coral reefs. We need to protect these areas from degradation. And unlike the land, we can safeguard our marine environment with just a few very simple and cost-effective steps.

• I support maintaining a moratorium on oil & gas development in offshore waters. The Bush Administration’s efforts to permit surveys of offshore oil and gas deposits represent a threat to our coastlines. I support the Ocean Protection Council’s position that any pending federal legislation regarding Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing must retain all protections from the Congressional leasing moratorium and should seek to make these protections permanent.
• Expanding the current set of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is essential. On land we protect our natural heritage in breathtaking places such as Yosemite, Sequoia, and Redwood National Parks. There needs to be comparable protection at sea. California’s 1999 Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) directed the state to design and manage a network of marine protected areas in order to protect marine life, habitats, and ecosystems, while improving the recreational and educational provided by marine ecosystems. Implementation has been limited, with very little of California’s state waters actually protected from destructive practices. The state should rigorously pursue the creation of a network of MPAs that cover representative, vulnerable, and high-valuable habitats.
• Fisheries reform needs to continue. In 1976, California’s waters supported landings of over 550,000 tons of fish. Over the last three decades, landings have fallen nearly 70% (NMFS, 2006).  Following in the footsteps of Steinbeck’s sardines, many of our commercial fisheries have been overexploited. Abalone and rockfish populations have been decimated, and trophy size tunas, marlins, and swordfish are increasingly rare.  Destructive fishing practices such as bottom trawling and dredging are destroying the marine habitat, and bycatch regularly kills marine turtles and seabirds. Alongside implementation of the MLPA, the state should tighten fisheries management to expand existing no-trawl zones, as recently done in Monterey Bay. Innovative techniques such as individual fishing quotas should be pursued to make our fisheries more profitable.
• An opportunity exists to position California’s fisheries for success in the coming decades. The state should follow Alaska’s example and provide assistance for fisheries pursuing eco-certifcation, such as the Marine Stewardship Council certification.
• Many of the most pervasive threats facing our oceans originate on land. Destruction of estuarine and freshwater habitat harms the marine life that use these areas as nurseries. Non-point source pollution affects ecological processes. Toxins in our water threaten marine life and contaminate seafood. And ultimately, climate change may pose the biggest threat of all, with recent scientific evidence indicating that global currents and surface temperatures can be rapidly affected by global warming. As previously discussed, we need to take action on each of these issues.

[back to top]

My vision: Watersheds healthy enough to support thriving salmon runs.

We have made tremendous progress on water pollution over the past thirty years. The passage of the Clean Water Act led to substantial accomplishments in improving wastewater discharges, banning ocean dumping, and eliminating the use of many persistent toxins. Today, our attention needs to be shifted toward more diffuse sources of water pollution, including agricultural run-off and atmospheric deposition. These “non-point sources” of pollution are responsible for most serious water quality issues in the U.S., and improvements have been slow (Boesch, 2001). In general, it is much easier to work on prevention of non-point pollution than to spend millions of dollars to clean up these water supplies after habitat has been destroyed. We need to engage a variety of strategies to address non-point source pollution:

• Water quality is intimately tied with development in watersheds. Science indicates that when watersheds are covered more than 10% by impervious surfaces (paved roads, roofs), water quality declines precipitously. As discussed, we need a master plan for California’s growth that takes these concerns into consideration.
• We can also use a master growth plan to stem the loss of agricultural land because of unplanned growth including using urban growth boundaries.
• We need statewide requirements that require any new developments to be constructed with water runoff in mind, and include inexpensive and proven tools such as permeable driveways, walkways, and roads.
• We must strengthen state guidelines for pollution from construction projects.
• We also need to do everything we can to encourage sustainable agricultural practices, including using the purchasing power of the State of California to buy local, sustainably grown products.
• On a statewide level, we need to improve discharge requirements in the Bay and the Delta.  Illegal dumping of motor oil or other toxins and other actions of bad actors must be punished to the full extent of the law.  We must step up funding for enforcement and increase penalties.
• We can address atmospheric deposition of pollutants by reducing diesel particulates and other emissions. Similarly, a toxic pollutants tax can help to abate water quality issues.

[back to top]

My vision: An agriculture and forestry industry that contributes to biodiversity.

Sustainable food systems are a critical component of California’s long term sustainability. California needs to have a healthier food system and a healthier environment. Currently, both are in terrible disarray. During the 1990s, the use of carcinogenic pesticides in California more than doubled. Out topsoil is being used and eroded many times faster than it is naturally generated. At the same time, we have witnessed tremendous success and development of sustainable, environmentally responsible agriculture.  And, we must reward responsible growers.  We have an obligation to better address all of these issues.

• The average meal we eat travels nearly 2,000 miles. We need to have state-supported institutions such as schools and government agencies using their purchasing power to support local, sustainable products. Community supported agriculture should be promoted on the state and local levels.
• Damaging chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides, and artificial fertilizers should be taxed to compensate for the environmental damage they cause. Those revenues can be recycled to support sustainable agriculture or directed to other necessary social services such as education. The most toxic chemicals should be phased out entirely.
• Programs that encourage sustainable aquaculture, such as Central Valley sturgeon farms, and coastal abalone and sea bass operations should be supported. I believe aquaculture has a valuable role to play in the future of seafood.
• We must protect the sanctity of the organic label, and develop similar standards for “local” labels that can be used at the retail level.
• Given the alarming rates of childhood obesity in our nation, public education on these issues needs to continue.
• We should use the power of the state budget to make sure that state-purchased food (at universities, schools, etc) is California-grown, toxin-free and produced through environmentally sustainable practices. I believe that this proposal will create healthier children, reduce state health care costs and reduce water pollution. It would also cut down on pollution from trucks, ships and planes that are shipping processed foods from across the country and around the world. Our children should be eating apples from Sonoma, not South Africa.
• Clear cutting in our watersheds is doing tremendous damage to our water quality.  Resulting seepage and slides leads to silting up of creeks and increased turbidity in our vital streams and rivers.  Fragile fish spawning grounds are being destroyed and important riparian plant life is unable to survive.  The impact on the forest ecosystem is immeasurable.    
• We must require compliance from loggers to preserve and protect our natural habitat.  Short term profits and harvest levels need to take a backseat to environmental protection.
• Our forests are among our most valuable common assets and we should not pursue policies that encourage unsustainable harvesting.  Among the many environmental policy disasters emerging from President Bush’s White House, the giveaways to corporate loggers stands out as being particularly reprehensible. His “Healthy Forests” initiative and shameful and illegal efforts to roll back President Clinton’s environmental legacy are devastating.  I applaud the efforts to stop the unlawful taking of ancient Sequoias in the Sequoia National Monument.  The federal injunction is a promising first step, but we must all remain vigilant in our efforts to halt President Bush’s anti-forest and anti-environmental policies and to protect and bolster the health of our environment over the short-term profits of loggers.

[back to top]

My vision: A unified system of incentives encouraging intelligent resource conservation.

As a citizen of this country, I was appalled to hear Vice President Cheney shun conservation as a component of a sound, comprehensive policy. Particularly for energy and water, each of us shares a mutual obligation to use our resources wisely, and it is the state’s duty to help instill that conservation ethic. 

• Conservation begins at home. As such, I pledge that this campaign and my office will minimize our ecological footprint. We will offset our carbon emissions, use recycled paper, and minimize water and energy use.
• Buildings must be designed to be as energy and water efficient as possible.  Buildings should be designed, situated and constructed to reduce heating and cooling costs including: consideration of where windows should be placed, installation of roof gardens and use of better insulation.  Increased use of gray water, rainwater and installation of low flush toilets and water efficient faucets must become the standard.  Recycled building materials, energy efficient appliances and lighting must be required where possible. Construction of state buildings should meet or exceed the LEED Gold Rating.
• In all places practical, new state vehicles should run on natural gas, hybrid motors, or other cleaner engines.
• Water and energy efficiency standards for residential and commercial appliances should be updated, along with retrofit standards for sales of existing homes. We should create rebates for water and energy efficient appliances. Appliances should be labeled with efficiency ratings. Urban wastewater reuse programs should be encouraged.
• State and local government must do a better job of informing the small business community and private citizens about existing incentive and rebate programs for energy and water conservation efforts.  Small businesses, in particular, have the opportunity to dramatically reduce our consumption and waste of water and energy. We must work to help them make this happen. I have spoken with many small business owners who would welcome a green audit program whereby efficiency experts evaluated and analyzed small business water and energy use practices and provided a list of prescriptive measures.
  In order to get business owners to participate, small businesses should be granted an amnesty grace period to correct existing regulatory violations that are identified by an auditor.
• Limitations on junk mail similar to the “do not call” list should be considered.
• Consumers – from a very young age – must be engaged in the creation and development of a culture of recycling.  Whether we’re talking about soda cans, batteries or automobiles, recycling is most successful within the context of a community culture of stewardship and responsibility. Similarly, water conservation education should continue.

[back to top]

Full Citations

Robert Costanza et al. 1997 "The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital," Nature, vol. 387, no. 6230

BBC, 2005. Richard Black. 2005 warmest on record in North.

Cordova et al., 2006. Climate Change in California.

IPCC. 2001. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

U.S. Census, 2005.

ROC. Roots of Change Fund. 2006.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2006. Chinook salmon page.

American Lung Association. 2005. State of the Air Report.

California Air Resources Board. 2005. Reducing Smog Factsheet.

California Air Resources Board. 2003. PROPOSED DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER CONTROL MEASURE FOR ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION VEHICLES

Pacific Institute, 2004.

NMFS. 2006. National Marine Fisheries Service. Annual Landings Database.

Donald Boesch et al. 2001. Marine Pollution in the United States. Report for the Pew Oceans Commission. Arlington, VA.

AFT. American Farmland Trust website. 

About this policy paper:

Janet Reilly knows we will never create a healthier California unless we demand accountability and real plans from our elected officials. That’s why Democrat Janet Reilly is publishing a series of comprehensive policy proposals on issues such as health care, transportation, improving our schools, protecting our environment and keeping our communities safe from violence. You won’t agree with all of these ideas, but you will know where she stands.

Please let us know what you think. If you have questions, comments, or disagreements about this plan, please visit www.janetreilly.com and make your voice heard.

Download this paper as a pdf.

[back to top]