On Monday night, the state assembly passed Senate Bill 253, a landmark climate law that would require large corporations to disclose their climate emissions. The bill passed with no votes to spare. Our representative, Diane Papan, abstained. So, if the bill lost just one more vote, her action would have doomed it. By a strange quirk of our government, once the bill had passed, she and eight other abstainers were allowed to vote again, and voted for it — like joining the winning team after the game is over.
Reputable polls show that 80% of San Mateo residents believe that corporations should do more to address global warming, so if our representative tries to block such action and then cover her tracks, then I think we should all know.
While I don't know the details of this bill it sounds like one more burden on corporations that won't do a thing to affect the global climate. Papan admitted to me that the Dems in the legislative super-majority vote in lockstep on "social issues" but that she considers herself a "pragmatist" (would not say moderate) and would have no problem voting differently on other issues. So if this is baby step in that direction, great. One party rule has not been good for our state.
This sounds discriminatory… why target large corporations? How about requiring city and state governments to disclose their climate emissions? Plane, train, and automobile rides, junkets to Hawaii or other locales, the number of government buildings needing to be maintained, along with requisite utilities, the number of automobiles, the train-to-nowhere which will never be carbon neutral… This sounds like a first step to potentially penalizing large corporations financially. But then large corporations will do what comes naturally… move to another state, while taking employees and tax revenues with them… And, as MichKosk noted, won’t do a thing to affect the global climate.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(2) comments
While I don't know the details of this bill it sounds like one more burden on corporations that won't do a thing to affect the global climate. Papan admitted to me that the Dems in the legislative super-majority vote in lockstep on "social issues" but that she considers herself a "pragmatist" (would not say moderate) and would have no problem voting differently on other issues. So if this is baby step in that direction, great. One party rule has not been good for our state.
This sounds discriminatory… why target large corporations? How about requiring city and state governments to disclose their climate emissions? Plane, train, and automobile rides, junkets to Hawaii or other locales, the number of government buildings needing to be maintained, along with requisite utilities, the number of automobiles, the train-to-nowhere which will never be carbon neutral… This sounds like a first step to potentially penalizing large corporations financially. But then large corporations will do what comes naturally… move to another state, while taking employees and tax revenues with them… And, as MichKosk noted, won’t do a thing to affect the global climate.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.