James Irwin for The Bay Citizen

Steam rises during refining operations at sunrise on May 22, 2010 at the Valero Benicia refinery

California voters appear to have rejected a bid to suspend the state’s landmark global warming law, despite attempts to persuade them that curbing greenhouse gases could cost jobs during a time of staggering unemployment.

With early returns showing Proposition 23 going down soundly in defeat with 61 percent of voters casting ballots against it, the "No on 23" campaign declared victory.

"In the midst of a major economic downturn, and with a barrage of fear mongering and scare tactics, voters still said that they want a clean energy future," said Tom Steyer, co-chair of the campaign, who gave $5 million of his own money to the cause, in a statement. 

Prop. 23 has been one of the most important environmental contests in the country this election season. “It’s a huge win for the clean-energy economy,” said Derek Walker, director of Environmental Defense Fund’s California Climate Initiative. “It means the voters of California see that clean energy jobs are the key to our economic recovery.” The Environmental Defense Fund was one of the founding members of the “No on 23” campaign. 

The “Yes on Proposition 23” campaign, whose largest financial backers were two Texas-based oil refiners, argued that California’s sorry economic state, including an unemployment rate hovering above 12 percent, meant that the state cannot afford to curb greenhouse gases, as its 2006 global warming law requires. The proposition would have suspended the law until unemployment in the state holds steady at 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters, which would likely have put it on ice for years.

A spokesman for Valero, the largest single contributor to Prop 23, did not immediately return calls for comment.

Voters apparently did not buy the argument that environmental protections and job growth are mutually exclusive. “Green jobs are what is growing in California,” said Jonathan Eden, a community college professor, who lives in Berkeley, who voted against Prop. 23. “That’s the most important proposition to me. It’s so obviously an attempt for the oil companies to roll back environmental laws, hurting everyone, including the economy. It’s very clear that would be a step back.”

Mike Hokenson, a resident of the Potrero neighborhood in San Francisco, said: “Sustainability has to be perceived as the driver of innovation, not something that is going to weaken our economic place in the world, so I can’t support Prop. 23.”

The measure was closely watched by major environmental groups, which have been frustrated in their attempt so pass climate-change legislation at the national level. The National Wildlife Federation gave $3 million to efforts to defeat the initiative, while the League of Conservation Voters gave $1.25 million, according to MapLight.org. Silicon-Valley clean-tech investors also contributed substantially, with venture capitalists John Doerr and Vinod Khosla tossing in $2.1 million and $1 million, respectively.

In fact, the forces united against Prop. 23 vastly out fundraised the proponents of the measure, despite the oil-interests' deep pockets, with Valero giving $5.1 million and Tesoro contributing $2 million in support of the initiative. Supporters of Prop. 23 raised about $10.7 million, while its opponents brought in $31.3 million, according to MapLight.org. 

Kendra Zien, a volunteer-coordinator for a museum who lives in Point Richmond, voted against Prop. 23 because she feared the national implications of suspending the state’s global warming law. “Lots of California’s environmental laws have eventually been picked up by the other states,” she said. “And I think that if we suspend this one, it’s setting a precedent to suspend taking care of the environment for short-term economic stimulus.”

Opponents of the measure successfully painted Prop. 23 as the handiwork of out-of-state oil companies bent on messing with California’s laws. “Stop Texas Oil" read signs against the measure, produced by Credo Mobile, the mobile phone company that advocates for progressive causes. Schwarzenegger beat the Texas oil drum in his vigorous campaigning against Prop. 23, as well: “Texas oil companies have descended upon California to overturn a California law,” he rallied in one speech in Santa Clara.

It was a message that resonated with Californians, not only because of the out-of-state influence. “Voters don’t want oil companies to be able to buy their way out of cleaning up their fuels and their refineries,” said Bill Magavern, director of Sierra Club California, which did get-out-the-vote efforts with  environmentally conscious voters.

Some Bay Area communities had a more complicated relationship with the measure than others. In Benicia, where Valero operates a refinery, the taxes it pays account for about a fifth of the city’s budget. With the ballot measure so closely identified with one of the city’s major employers, the City Council decided not to take a position on the measure, despite the recommendation of the city's Community Sustainability Commission that the Council come out against it.

Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, who was a vocal opponent of Prop. 23, said that she thinks the outcome of the race will be good for her city in the over time. “The reality is that 10 years from now, we need to have far more diverse economic activity in Benicia because of the long-term trend of declining dependence on fossil fuel,” she said. “Maybe Valero will diversify itself, and to the extent that we can work with them on that, I’m eager to do so.”