Perhaps you have seen a Nestle corporation PR campaign touting their supposed stellar record on sustainability. The company calls its water–eco-shaped and claims it has 15% less plastic, and even asks consumers to recycle. The problem is that 98% of Nestle’s products are sold using single-use plastic, and the company produces 1.7 million tons of plastic annually. It’s hardly the eco-friendly company its ads purport it to be. This practice of deceptive climate marketing is called greenwashing, and we’re seeing a similar tactic being deployed by California utilities right now.
California has three monopoly utilities, PG&E, SoCal Edison, and SDG&E. We’re all familiar with their electric bills, which keep getting higher and harder to pay every month. Just as Nestle boasts its environmental efforts while simultaneously producing plastic, these utilities use similar gaslighting techniques. They hire high-priced PR and marketing firms to pull the wool over all of our eyes with a popular but insidious strategy we call “equity-washing.”
Simply put, PG&E and the other monopoly utilities tout policies they say are fiscally equitable for their low-income customers. However, when you look at the details, they’re nothing more than a scheme to maintain profits for their Wall Street shareholder on the backs of working and middle-class families.
The best example of this is “income-based-fixed-charges,” which tack fees onto energy bills based on income rather than energy usage. When we first heard about the policy, we, like many advocates, thought, ‘Wow, a progressive tax on utility bills. Finally, wealthy energy hogs will be paying their fair share.” Boy, were we wrong!
When we looked closer at the so-called “income-based-fixed-charge,” we were flabbergasted. The policy was rotten from its inception. First off, the language was shoved into a climate bill at the last minute by monopoly utility lobbyists, and the Public Utilities Commission (which regulates the utilities) refused any public hearings on the policy. So, public transparency be damned.
Then, we read a letter sent to the CPUC from twenty-four progressive energy economists making the point that not only is the policy not progressive, but it actually hurts millions of families living in small homes, condos, and apartments. Families that rely on conserving energy to lower their monthly utility bills. In other words, California’s working poor.
In truth, the so-called “income-based-fixed-charge” is nothing more than a utility tax on the working poor and middle class.
To fight back against the monopoly utilities “equity-washing,” we have helped organize a coalition of more than two hundred and twenty grassroots community organizations, including the California Environmental Justice Coalition, the California Alliance for Retired Americans, The Western Center on Law & Poverty, The Center for Biological Diversity, Tenants Together, the Martin Luther King Jr. Freedom Foundation, Catholic Charities, and California Interfaith Light and Power–all advocating for actual equity in our society and NOT the interests of some Wall Street-traded businesses like the monopoly utilities.
Fortunately, we’re not alone. California legislators are also exposing the monopoly utilities equity-washing scheme. Last month, Democratic Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin introduced AB 1999. The bill would repeal the utility tax. She was joined by a diverse group of thirty-five Assembly members and state senators. A complete repeal would be an appropriate outcome for such a regressive and deceptive policy.
We look forward to the utility tax’s repeal. We look forward to discussing the most progressive ways to lower California’s carbon footprint and, at the same time, lowering energy bills for California’s working families.
Here’s a hint. The answer doesn’t favor the interests of monopoly utilities that make tens of billions of dollars of profit every year and pay CEOs $50 million dollar bonuses. But the answer to solving out-of-control energy costs is one rooted in cleaner and cheaper Green energy. There’s no washing away that truth.
Ambrose Carroll, Ezperanza Vielma, and Francisco Moreno are leaders of the Coalition for Environmental Equity and Economics.
[ad_2]
Source link
In a scene that could have been ripped from a Hollywood heist movie, a discerning thief with a nose for fine wine cut a hole above the wine cellar of an exclusive Venice, California wine store, dropped down into the dark room, and stole 800 bottles of wine valued at $600,000.
“It was like something out of ‘Ocean’s Eleven.’ We just couldn’t believe it,” Nick Martinelle, the store manager of Lincoln Fine Wines, told CNN.
Now Los Angeles police are looking for the Burgundy burglar who they say worked with at least one other accomplice.
“We suspect there may be a person that is getting the wine handed down to them off the rooftop and possibly a getaway driver,” Los Angeles Police Department Det. Joel Twycross told the Los Angeles Times. “It is evident that this was planned for a while, and a lot of effort was put into mapping out how to evade getting caught.”
Photo courtesy of Tristar Investigation
Not a job for amateurs
Investigators believe whoever committed this crime knew what they were looking for and planned it out in advance.
Grainy surveillance video captured a man dressed in all black wearing a red-billed baseball cap stealing the booty. He appears to be taking instructions from someone on a cell phone. The theft took about 3 1/2 hours as the burglar methodically went through each bottle of wine to choose only the best vintage.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the stolen items included about 75 bottles that retailed for over $1,000. Some hot ticket items include a bottle of Billecart-Salmon Brut Reserve Champagne in an uncommonly large, 15-liter format known as a Nebuchadnezzar.
“This is an extraordinary list,” wine consultant Melissa Smith told the Times. “A lot of them are things collectors would want in their possession.”
The store’s owner agrees. Nazmul Haque Helal, who has owned Lincoln’s Fine Wines for years, told the Times that the robber passed over some California wines to target a few French rarities from the Bordeaux and Burgundy regions.
“It is very hard for me to digest. All my hard work snatched within a couple hours,” Haque Helal told CNN.
Related: An Iconic New York City Wine Store Is Facing a Criminal Investigation
[ad_2]
Source link
The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta wants information on Tesla’s self-driving technology and marketing strategies, according to CNBC.
Mr. Bonta’s office contacted a former Tesla employee, who has yet to be named, inquiring about an investigation into the company. The employee has apparently been outspoken, during and after his time at Tesla, about problems with the company’s self-driving technology.
The office also contacted Tesla customer Greg Wester, who owns a Tesla Model 3. Mr. Wester filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission in 2022 concerning the car’s phantom braking, which causes some of Tesla’s self-driving cars to stop for no apparent reason. The issue has long been a thorn in the side of Tesla fans and regulators.
Mr. Wester told the FTC in his complaint that he felt misled by the advertising for Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” cars. He said he paid thousands of dollars for a driver assistance program, not a self-driving program.
Tesla’s FSD technology has been under scrutiny since the firm launched it last year. Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO, promised to roll out the technology virtually and install it in thousands of cars around the world. The technology has not been perfect, however, and Tesla has been the subject of investigations over mistakes in the machines.
California’s Department of Motor Vehicles has been investigating the FSD technology in Tesla’s cars for years and accused the company of deceiving its customers. The federal government has made similar claims during its own investigation, with some saying the cars shouldn’t be allowed on highways.
Several former employees have testified that the leadup to the launch of the technology was rocky, claiming Mr. Musk and others pushed out FSD before it was fully ready. Although it bills the technology as self-driving, the company says an attentive driver must be behind the wheel and does not recommend ignoring the road while the car is operational.
[ad_2]
Source link