Block Pro-Environment Efforts

Find a timeline

Over the past 20+ years, hundreds of organizations have come together to address climate change and other forms of environmental harm being caused across California. However, their efforts to make the state – and the planet – livable for future generations have consistently faced stiff, very well-funded opposition from corporate advocacy groups, oil & gas companies, and utility companies.

Below are some of the key bills and ballot measures that have shaped policy in this area. Click on them to learn more about what they did, or could have done, and who supported and opposed them.

2005

This ballot measure would have required utility companies to increase their use of renewable energy sources by at least 1% every year, and at least 20% by 2010.

Spending in Support

$81.2M

Spending in Opposition

$4.7M

Results

Defeated 34%/66%

Supporters

Spent $81.2 million, with the majority coming from the California Teachers Association ($40.6 million) and the California State Council of Service Employees ($12.5 million).

Opponents

Spent $4.7 million, with the largest spenders being:

Constellation Energy Group

$2.1M

Mirant Services

$747K

Calpine Corporation

$487K

Reliant Energy

$348K

Sempra Energy

$184K

Strategic Energy

$173K

California Retailers Association

$122K

Read more about this

2005-06

Among other things, this bill would have required that state agencies take every “cost-effective” and “technologically feasible” action to reduce the growth of petroleum demand and increase vehicle energy efficiency and the use of alternative fuels.

2005-06

This bill would have increased the penalty caps for certain types of air pollution.

2006

This ballot measure would have imposed a tax on oil extraction to fund alternative energy research.

2007-08

This bill would have required new commercial buildings that are 50,000 square feet or greater to be designed, constructed, and operated to meet the applicable green building standards.

2007-08

This bill would have established the California Climate Change Institute within the University of California to perform climate change research and help develop green workforce development strategies.

2008

This ballot measure would have required utilities to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, 40% by 2020, and 50% by 2025.

2009-10

With funds generated from the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, this bill would have created a California Climate Change Community Benefits Fund to direct funds solely to the communities most impacted and disadvantaged by greenhouse gas emissions.

2010

This ballot measure would have strengthened PG&E’s monopoly and weakened the ability of localities to offer renewable energy to residents.

2010

This ballot measure sought to suspend the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (see above) until California’s unemployment rate dropped to 5.5% or lower for a full year.

2015-16

This bill required the Air Resources Board to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by 2030.

2017-18

This bill would have required notification of any negative environmental impacts to families and schools that are located nearby.

2021-22

This bill would have declared that it is the policy of the state to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions and reduce anthropogenic emissions by at least 90% below the 1990 level no later than 2045.

2021-22

This bill would have required large businesses operating in California to publicly report their greenhouse gas emissions.

2023-24

This bill would have increased California’s greenhouse gas emission reduction target from 40% below the 1990 level to 55% below that level.

2023-24

This bill would have amended the California Constitution to declare that the people shall have a right to clean air and water and a healthy environment.

2023-24

This bill would have required that certain fossil fuel companies pay for the costs that California has or will incur as a result of climate change.

2025-26

This bill sought to create a cause of action for those harmed by “climate disasters,” storms, wildfires, and other events caused in part by climate change, against large companies engaged in the extraction, production, manufacture, marketing, or sale of fossil fuel products.

2025-26

This bill would have required responsible parties to pay the state for all damages associated with climate harms accrued since January 1, 1990.

Where are we now?

Because so many organizations and community leaders came together to fight for the health and viability of our environment, there have been many significant victories over the past two decades. However, the consistent opposition from deep-pocketed corporate advocacy groups, oil & gas companies, and utility companies has delayed and prevented the type of action that is necessary to preserve life on this planet. As a result, and in large part because of the consistent opposition from California’s oligarchs, California is already experiencing the harmful effects of climate change, including an increase in extreme heat events, drought, floods, wildfire, and sea level rise. The potential impacts only get more severe if this pattern continues:

According to the most recent California Climate Change Assessment, without large-scale human intervention, by 2100 the average annual maximum daily temperature is projected to increase by 5.6-8.8°F, water supply from snowpack is projected to decline by two-thirds, the average area burned in wildfires could increase by 77%, and up to 67% of Southern California beaches may completely erode due to sea level rise.
A study by researchers from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that by 2100, roughly six feet of sea level rise and recurring annual storms could impact more than 480,000 California residents.

Where are we now? Find out