Why 61% of Californians Support Prop 87 on Alternative Energy

Dr. Luce,

I am a UCLA graduate. I have patented a system and method for producing renewable energy using both river systems and waves-breakwater. I would appreciate it if you would have a look at the technology:
1. No large impoundment area is required.
2. Very little change in elevation is required.
3. Low capital costs to build.
4. Adapts to both land and sea applications.
5. 0 C02 emmissions.
6. Non polluting.
7. Megawatts of production.
8. The only non-intermitant renewable technology on the market today.
9. Small impact on the surrounding enviornment.

WWW.fieldstoneenergy.com

The idiots who support Yes on 87 have their head up their ass. The prices of gasoline is a market driven price. You don't believe Proposition 87 will cost consumers anything. Think again. There is no free lunch. Big Oil is what makes this country run. You should be mad at the government and not big oil. The government rakes in billions in gasoline taxes. They profit more from gasoline prices than big oil ever did. The little guy at the bottom selling gasoline only makes a few pennies on a gallon of gas. Would you like to go back to 1979 and see how much gas was available when prices were capped?
You morons don't understand supply and demand. Let's quit punishing Big Oil they are not the problem. Environmentalists and their whacko ideas to take us back to the stone age. Our air in California is cleaner than it has ever been. Let's not punish big oil by trying to force it to do research into alternative fuels. You don't think oil companines will pass on the cost of doing business in this state? Think again. Every expense you force on a company is passed down in the cost of doing business. Gas today is cheaper than it would be had it been adjusted for inflation. Bottled water costs you more than a gallon of gasoline but nobody bitches about the price of bottled water.

Turner, I am sorry which oil company did you say you worked for?

So which oil company do you think L.R. works for? Mr. Turner should have his intials changed to M.R.?

How much oil is even drilled in California? Hardly any, because you idiot environmentalists make it as impossible as can be. Do you think this tax won't be passed on to the consumer? This stupid proposition will only make gas more expensive.

If you want to pay for less gas, quit driving so much. This state destroyed its public transportation and foolishly builds sprawling car-filled suburbs, prohibits all drilling and new energy investment, and then can't figure out why gas costs so much.

Cheap energy is not your birthright, it is a facet of history. Now you credit-card using, SUV-driving, gas-guzzling, energy-ignorant buffoons will get what you deserve: bankruptcy.

I am angry at pollution and oil prices but you don't need much more than literacy to see this is waste of the ink and paper required to put this on the ballot.

I like the part how the prop makes it illegal to pass these costs on to consumers as if prices were not market/speculation driven already.

Whats crazy is that we already have the technology of incredible electric cars (see Tesla Motors ) Powerful new solar material that is thin and flexible so you can shingle your roof with it. Toshiba has come up with batteries that are thinner,lighter and can recharge in a few minutes! We have practical,no emissions technology right in front of us that will render our disgusting combustion engines obsolete. We need to stand up and applaud the great minds of our time and get these products on the market and available for everyday purchase. It's insane not to.

This appears to be a good idea -- although Big Oil can and will charge what they want for gas. It's time for the American People to realize that Big Oil is a monolopy, and that demand for oil based products is,
unfortunately, inelastic. Big Oil dominates the refining process, this is where they are making their
zillions in profits. If less oil is refined, they can raise the price per gallon to make up the difference. We will see $4.00 plus gas soon, and, next year, the oil companies will be programing us for $5 per gallon gas. The only short term solution is to have a national program whereby Big Oil is regulated by a new agency within the Dept.of Energy. Similar in concept to the way ATT was regulated for years, Big Oil will have to "open up" their books to the regulators. They will be allowed a "fair and reasonable" profit, not the "obscene" profits they have been making at the expense of the American People and the economy. Further,
it is the position of our group, Americans for Fair Gas,
that by the year 2020 America should be non-dependent on petroleum based products -- e.g., no new gas or diesel cars will be sold to the public; by 2025 no new or commercial gas or diesel car or trucks will be sold to the public (private or business) and the government;
by the year 2030, no used gas or diesel cars will be sold, period. AND, by 2040 ALL gas or diesel trucks, cars, RV's, etc. will cease to be operated in America.
The government has to subsidize alternate fuel tecnologies and the Auto Companies have to develope new cars, be they ethanol, electric, or whatever to provide transportation options to the American People. We can already see the affects of global warming on our weather throughout the world;it's time to end the rein of the internal combustion engine and move forward with new energy sources and vehicles before mankind, quite possibly, becomes the instrument of its own demise.

See my Web site www.truthaboutenergy.com

And learn about the renewable energy systems.

Sure proposition 87 will raise the price of gas and THAT is a good thing. It is the only way to get Americans to conserve. The funds it raises for alternative energy, in the long run, will reduce the need for oil (relative to what it would otherwise be) and yes all you supply/demand economists, THAT will eventually lower the price of oil (relative to what it would be without 87).
Americans think with their wallets and gas at $5 a gallon would be a blessing, even if most Americans are too stupid to recognize that fact.

Most Americans are concerned about the use of fossil fuels.
My Question is this, Once we start using alturnitive fuel sources how do we get rid of the Gasoline as a by product. PVC,ABS, and other plastic type products are the by-products of fossil fuel. at this point the internal combustion engine (your Automobile) is the cleanest and the most effient way to dispose of Gasoline as a by-product. The challenge is much bigger than what the sponsor of prop 87 envisions or wants to even consider. It's an emotional issue and the sponsors want you to vote your emotions. Think, California Think!

Prop 87 is just another way for the California politician to fleece the the Citizens of this great state. Who sponsored this proposition? maybe we should support their political opposition and get them out of office! Send a message to our politians, republican or democrate its not about them, its who the serve! their not serving us by taxing us more!

Between L.R. Turner and Aaron Rodgers, we have heard from the ignorant reactionary contingent. I wonder if they work for Big Oil, or if they're just brain-dead ditto-heads parroting what they hear. Mr. Rodgers asks us how much oil is produced in this state, and then immediately responds that it's hardly any. I Googled that question, and the answer was that 764 million barrels of oil were produced in California in 2005. Is that 'hardly any?' I bet we'd notice that big a drop. He also wants to say the fault is entirely in the environmentalists' lap, not noting that Big Oil has been CLOSING refineries, not applying for more. They don't want more production. They want more profits. What if we took the $4 billion Big Oil fears and put it into subsidising solar panels for houses in California? It would allow about 200,000 houses per year to get solar panels FOR FREE, or subsidize about half the cost for about 400,000 houses per year. How about that for adding some power to our strained energy grid? High oil prices are a reality, and they will get worse. We can take a little pain now for a better future, or rail against it and pay even more dearly next year.

The thought is a nobel venture in a unworkable solution; time will run out, and when our backs are to the wall; then and only then, will things get done. What is this group of 50 noble citizens, to descide how to spend the income from the tax? What if any, oversight is given to the accountablilty for the spending...mmmmm??? Where there is great sums of free money; there is some that would be corrupt...even power can turn heads the wrong way...I think this idea is great in someways; but it is doomed for failure by the beuracracy that it sets up, causing more government intervention into each users life.

Allan Arther:

What color is the sky in your world??? About the last thing we're going to have to worry about in my lifetime or yours if what to do with all the excess gasoline. Of the arguments here, this has to be the least reality-based one presented. I agree that ultimately we will bear some portion of the cost of this proposition. But there is a limit. It would not apply to oil drilled outside California. So Big Oil would have to make sure they don't overcharge for their California oil and cut themselves out of the market. And at the record profits that have been recorded of late, this is not going to put anybody in business jeopardy.

I agree there is always a possibility for fraud and waste for any tax stream. That is why I'd like to read the text of Prop. 87 before I vote one way or the other. But that worry is not a reason to allow the status quo of having the Citizens of California fleeced by Big Oil without any benefit to continue indefinitely. You design and implement oversight, and you put a sunset date on the bill, and off you go. It's not that hard.

Mr Griffith

You must be a proponet of CalTrans the bottle neck Kings. they also didn't take into consideration the future. and now are rebuilding freeways that were built 2 generations ago Due to lack of vision yeah give the money to the money pit in Sacramento it will make things better...NOT!! Free enterprise is what built this Great Nation! Meaningful incentives to the forward thinking people like Brian Meano who is developing the alturnitive not talking about it. Or how about acting on technology we Know works greater incentives to homeowners who install solar energy cell on their homes.
By having the local utility pay the home owner for energy generated back into the grid (At least until the system is paid for.)(Gee, that means cleaner energy without more taxation!!) Our current Legestrative *&^%$^%**
don't feel that's necessary! THE PROBLEM HERE IS HOW THE PROBLEM IS LOOKED AT! My sky is blue and I see more of it than looking through a small whole.

The sad truth is We love our freedom of driving alone.
We can get back get back at the money hungry corp's by reducing our consumption. but habits are hard to break.
and we have a tendency not to care about what's best for others only for ourselves.
Demand drives value!

No question this will result in higher gas prices for Californians:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/08/californias-proposition-87.html

However, I don't live in California, so I don't have to worry about that. Besides, higher gas prices will help spur conservation efforts, and that is ultimately a good thing in my opinion.

Cheers,

Robert Rapier

Grow Up Christine!!

It's truly bizarre that folks posting on this page believe that California has a local oil market that is not tied to the global oil market. This is idiocy.

Oil is a global commodity and it has a global price. If you assume a single-digit percentage decline in exploration in little tiny California, you aren't going to see a significant change in the price of oil globally. Get it? You think that the price of oil that ends refined somewhere in the US and eventually sold at CA gas pumps is somehow different that the global price of oil?

Relative to the production of OPEC, California produces very little oil. A

However, this proposition is being bankrolled by a corn-ethanol mogul. Yuck! Ethanol is not the answer to our energy needs.

In short, if it passes, the global price of oil will go up a tiny, maybe insignificant amount, and the price of gasoline will go up by an even smaller amount. Oil companies will a see a relatively small dent in their profits, and the money will be funneled into yet more ethanol boondogles.

If it doesn't pass, there might be a little bit more exploration in California than there would have been otherwise, which on a global scale is not significant in any case.

This bill benefits its author tremendously and is mostly irrelevant to just about everybody else.

Tell this guy to put his self-serving bill where the sun don't shine in November.

GAS PRICES!!!! We can not control gas prices no matter how many bills we pass. It's a fact. The price of gas is controlled by OPEC(research OPEC). OPEC decides how many millions of barrels a day they can produce. What does that have to do with us you may ask?

Well if you dont already know most of OPEC'S top direcotrs are from the middle east and every time a war breaks out involving the U.S., gas prices go up drastically and the OIL companies take advantage of it.
It is a win win situation for OPEC. If the U.S wants to go to war then we pay for the fuel to get where ever we need to go. And don't you think that since the most of the top management is from the Middle East, that they would have some sort of ties to AL Qaeda to destroy the American economy? They can't beat us in a war but the sure can hurt the economy. It sure sounds like OPEC is winning to me.

Dont go by what I write. Always do your research. Make you own conclusions for the right reasons and not for political, monetary, or personal gain.

Some of the comments from people opposing Prop 87 are truly amazing in their ignorance. Those who talk about controlling gas prices completely miss what this initiative is about. Rather than controlling gas prices, Prop 87 is about funding alternatives to fossil fuels so that all of us are less dependent on Big Oil for our energy needs. If, as some of these folks contend, gas prices are a matter of supply and demand then it seems reasonable that reducing the demand will also reduce the the cost. If we can use alternative energy sources, such as solar and wind, we can begin to reduce our dependence on oil no matter where it comes from. That sounds like good sense to me.

The oil company's make .10 on a gallon of gas, the goverment makes .85 on the same gallon. So, who is screwing you more? The add complains that the oil company's are paying other states for drilling, but not California, well California has blocked drill for years! So, you want your cake and eat it too? Good luck.
If you make Oil pay, so will you. If you put a cap on how much profit makes in a year, when they reach that cap, they will stop producing gas for the rest of the year. That could be 2 or 3 months. Good luck.
The only cure is more crude oil in the market, like it or not.

How is it possible to have so many people with very intellegent ideas, yet almost zero knowledge of the basic driving forces of a market economy. The frightening idea is that no one has asked how much the GOVERNMENT RUN ORGANIZATION will siphon from this "free funding of alternative energy"...? to monitor this new revenue source. You'll need buildings, accountants, lawyers and even more rules and regulation. All of this will cause "Big Oil" to hire more accountants/lawyers to be in compliance with new regulations...and yes,,,,they can pass those "normally incurred cost of operations" on to us the consumer. Read the fine print. If you want clean energy, by a Prius and stop jumping at soapbox special interest idiots. And no, I don't work for a Big Oil firm, I happened to pass Econ 101 (with a B+....damn pop quiz!)

The arguement that Prop 87 will increase our dependence on foreign oil is specious at best. We already import 58% of the oil we use and that is projected to increase to 68% in the next 20 years with or without Prop 87. According to one expert:
"We'll be dependent on the global market for more than half our oil for as long as we're using oil, and the energy bill isn't going to change that," said Ben Lieberman, who follows energy issues for the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. "There's a few measures to increase domestic production . . . and that would not do much."

Big Oil has contributed more than $31 million to the No on 87 campaign (Chevron: $12.8 million; Shell/Exxon: $12 million and Occidental: $3.25 million). Where do do think that money is coming from if not the profits they already make from high gas prices. So, we are already paying at the pump to keep our current dependency on foreign oil just as it is.
Prop 87 seeks to decrease our oil consumption no matter where it comes from. No wonder that Big Oil is threatened by that prospect.

I hate to inform everyone that about 75% of california drilled oil is produced from small independent production companies and not from these large corporations.. They do buy the crude from these companies and by this law the burden will be layed on these small not so rich companies.. California is the highest taxed oil and gas state in the u.s, It's taxes are on the average 3 times higher then other states. One of the reason gas prices are so high is because of refining capacity and the nightmare a company would deal with building a new one.. You may call me an idiot but this tax is rediculous.. The ethonal backed refiners have contributed twice as much for the yes vote the oil companies have for the no.. Have some common sense people.. dont believe the bull..

Pretty informed responses, I didn't expect as much. You can't artificially alter market forces of supply and demand. Why don't we teach economics in high school, people don't seem to get it. No on 87, give CA a few more years before the anti-business communists fully ruin this late great state.

Economics primer at http://www.bized.ac.uk/learn/economics/markets/mechanism/notes.htm

to illuminate the effects of tax regulation on the marketplace. 'laws to prevent price increases' will not work. Messed up CA market, will work.

Ride your damn bike, I do.

Why don't we teach sustainability, sustainability, local, local local and simplicity simplicity-Seems that proposition 87 is a step in the right direction for many reasons-doesn't take a rocket scientist to know we have to get off fossil fuels.

Why don't we teach sustainability, sustainability, local, local local and simplicity simplicity-Seems that proposition 87 is a step in the right direction for many reasons-doesn't take a rocket scientist to know we have to get off fossil fuels.

Most of you that have posted are more or less normal consumers. I'm looking at this bill from both a producer and consumer position. Currently in California it is illegal for an INDIVIDUAL to invent an alternative fuel conversion system for any car. I've attempted to ask about alternative fuel conversion systems but the government refuses to let anyone but a few select companies make conversion kits. I'm currently working on trying to make an ethanol conversion system for older carbureted cars. The State of California, currently, will not let me even test such a conversion. After reading this bill it notes that it will make incentives for INDIVIDUALS to convert to alternative fuels such as ethanol. Personally I'd like to see a bill that simply says to push for more alternative fuel stations and conversions instead of a lengthy confusing bill like this.

I am trying to take a position on prop 87 but all the information I have read so far is giving me the run around. Some people I know believe that the gas company bought out all the other alternative energy sources. Some statements made make prop 87 desierable, but I am not worried about the short time span, I am worried about the long run. What will prop 87 truly do? Is there anyone hwo can answer my question from a non-biast stand?

Why should Republicans vote for Prop 87?

1. Putting America First. Prop 87 will assist Americans to shift away from Middle Eastern Oil (which funds terrorism), toward energy from American sunshine, wind, and crops. America's national interest should never be compromised out of fear of retaliation from those who own the oil that our economy is currently addicted to. Nor should one American patriot lose his or her life stablizing a country that happens to have oil.

2. Ending Corporate Welfare. Prop 87 will stop the free ride that Big Oil has been enjoying at our expense. Why does Big Oil get to take the resources of the Californian people for free and sell it back at to them at whatever the market will bear? As Republicans are proud to declare: "There is no such thing as a free lunch."

3. Protecting the Kids. Prop 87 will assist in cleaning up the air for future Republican voters. Kids of Republicans suffer from asthma too.

4. Building a Stronger Economy. Prop 87 will create jobs in the energy sector (which are not out sourced to the third world), reduce the costs of energy throughout the economy (by lessening dependence on a dwindling scarce resource - "as supply goes down, price goes . . .), create valuable technology that can be exported to China and India. America WILL have to move away from oil. It will either import the necessary technology or create it now and export it to the world.

Whatever you think of all those tree-hugging, hairy-armpitted, cave dwelling greenies that Fox News tells us are out there, somewhere, use your hardnosed Republican logic and patriotic spirit to vote for Prop 87.

As an ex-Chevron employee, well versed in the inner workings of their public commentary and their sleezy operations and management style, I urge all Californians to vote Yes in support of Prop. 87.

All the anti-87 ads are funded primarily by Chevron, which is the largest oil producer in California and has 2 refineries - 1 in L.A. and 1 in S.F. The ads say that Prop. 87 will result in increased gas prices and reduced California production and increased foreign oil.

DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT!!!!!!! CHEVRON IS LYING THRU THEIR TEETH!!! THEY ARE THE MOST DISHONORABLE OIL COMPANY IN THE NATION - THE PRIME SCUM OF THE SCUM!

The only way they can defeat Prop. 87 is to claim that it will increase the price of gasoline. THIS IS UTTER BULLSHIT!!!!!!!! The price of gasoline is related to the worldwide price of crude which is determined by worldwide market forces. The additional taxes from Prop.87 are insignificant compared to that!!!!!

When heavy crude was less than $20/bbl, Chevron was doing all it could to produce as much as they could. Oil is $60/bbl now. You really think they are gonna decrease production if they have to pay an extra tax now? If you do you are either a moron or a paid lackey for them.

Vote Yes on Prop. 87. It even has language that prohibits them from raising gasoline prices.

You think research on alternate fuels is gonna proceed at a rapid pace if you leave the oil companies in charge? Particularly Chevron? Think again - they can't even get their own drilling or production projects off the ground in less than 2 years because of their asinine internal process review bureaucracy. It's something called CPDEP, short for Chevron Project Development Evaluation Process. Basically it requires about a zillion meetings to make a decision that should be made in about 1 hr.

The opponents claim that Prob. 87 doesn't require results. Well Geezus H Christ - that's the nature of research and development. You investigate things to see if it can be done and if so, how it can be done. There aren't any guarantees for research and Chevron and all the other anti-87 nimrods know this!!!

They complain that Prop. 87 has thousands and thousands of words in it, most of which don't guarantee a thing. Well , DUH!!!!!! Every other piece of legislation is no different!

DON'T BELIEVE THE OIL COMPANIES, API, WSPA, AND ESPECIALLY DON'T BELIEVE CHEVRON AND THEIR ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROP. 87. THEY ARE ALL LYING!!!!!!!!!!

Vote your heart, vote your passion, vote for what is right!!!!! vote yes on 87!!!!

Chevron made over $5 BILLION, that's BILLION dollars last quarter!!!

The opposition to Prop. 87 is all about greed. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. I know - I have sat in on Chevron's corporate Public Affairs strategy sessions. I know how they think. I know how they lie!!!!! They think they have the state legislature in their pockets and they think they can get anything they want!!!!

Vote YES on Prop. 87 - show them that we won't put up with their bullshit anymore!!!!!

This is same environmentalist rant that sold us MBTE. And the oil companies charged us extra for that little boondoggle too.

Building multi $billion state agencies shielded from legislative review is something that should give all taxpayers pause...

I am sorry, I just do not trust the State of Califonia to use this money for what it is intended. The State Government is incompetant as proven by its failed attempts to a consolidated EPA. This proposition sounds like a lame attempt at appeasing public opinion against oil companies while raising funds to create a new large porkbarrel project.

The $0.51 per gal. corporate welfare to the oil refiners for adding 5.6% ethanol to California gas is about $500,000,000.00 per year.

The ethanol may add over $1.00 per gal. to the gas profit in California.

That may be about $100 billion in oil profit from California motorists.

The science is interesting but so is the money.

A $4 billion Prop. 87 oil tax may add $40 billion in oil profit.

Charlie Peters
(510) 537-1796
Clean Air Performance Professionals

The $0.51 per gal. corporate welfare to the oil refiners for adding 5.6% ethanol to California gas is about $500,000,000.00 per year.

The ethanol may add over $1.00 per gal. to the gas profit in California.

That may be about $100 billion in oil profit from California motorists.

The science is interesting but so is the money.

A $4 billion Prop. 87 oil tax may add $40 billion in oil profit.

Charlie Peters
(510) 537-1796
Clean Air Performance Professionals

To all the people who say they don't trust the state of CA with the extra tax money... how do you propose we further alternative energy? Who should we trust? Is an alternative energy infrastructure going to grow itself out of the ground? There are times when we simply have to take a chance. If that means trusting some of our elected officials to do the right thing then so be it! The key word is ELECTED! That means we have to make sure that we are electing officials that are adamant about alternative energy. The potential good that can come from prop 87 outweighs the negatives by so much it's rediculous.

I think that this Prop 87 is an excellent idea. We need to start cutting back on gas and oil and this is definity a great way to start. Plus, it helps the economy and environment also. It is a win win situation. Somebody else stated above that the only way people will start to use less of the fossil fuels is if the prices will go up. And to tell you the truth, the is a fact. Alternative energy sources are the only ways to start saving the world we live in and the only way to begin is to start by making laws like this Prop 87. So in the end, I am in total support.

Gas is drilled in california, refined in california refineries, served locally is way high, than in a remote village in a state like Ohio. why? It is because of the greedy BigO! This is about California's gas consumers.(us) If BigO is going to raise the gas prices anyway, they why are they worried about this proposition. If they are going to pass the cost to the consumers, then why should they spend millions aginst this prop ?

Like 9/11, this is another test in front of us. We should change our direction, and take the first steps towards oil-independence. It is not only about money, but also about our clean air we californians breath.

25% less usage by 2020 is a great idea, and good for our children. It is a no-brainer choice to vote YES on 87. Dont get carried away by the ads on tv, where BigO is spending millions to stop us from this freedom.

I was leaning to the 'Yes' side of prop 87 until I read that 2 dot-com era bazillionairs who are 'venture capitalists' ie 'money grubbers' are behind it. So has anybody heard how much this is gonna cost John Q. Public in the future? Extra taxes, regulatory fees, assinine oversight committees,& infrastructure costs both above board and hidden? It ain't as plain as people like to make it seem. The only thing that's gonna change about 'obscene profits' is the name of the recipients of the profits. Read a few car mags to see the huge gains in automotive technology involving hydrogen, electric, battery powered, solar, and hybrid powered vehicles. You better think REAL hard on wether you as residents of CA want Sacramento running this. We all know how those sit-on-their-hands politico's will handle this.

It is SAD, that the people who are opposing 87, are ONLY concered about the money part. It is about our health and about our future generations. If this prop. fails, gas prices are going to raise as usual steadily, and we will be talking about a similar proposal 5 or 10 years from now, and gas prices will be $7 or $8 and nochange in our situation. might be worse!

I read about this prop in detail. ok, lets assume, all the 10Billion we invest in this alternative energy r&d fails, we still are not loosers. Atleast we tried. I believe we will be in some better place than we are now. Without funding r&d there would not have been a silicon valley in california. This prop. will accelerate the r&d work that is already in place.

Lets start thinking about, why the oil companies oppose this ? Do u think, they love us ? They are going to indirectly pass that tax to us somehow. They are not going to be affected by this tax. They dont want us to think, any other source of energy than gas.

Even if we fail in our R&D, which I dboubt, even if Sacramento politcs in play and money is swindled to some extent (possible), this prop will send the message, that we californians are not sitting idle, and doing something about our energy problem.

Hey middle-class californians, here is our chance ! Please think beyond money, and vote YES, to disapprove the way Oil companies are taking advantage over the demand of oil in California.

Does no one realize that gas is only going to go up. The last time I checked oil is a limited resource, but maybe I‘m wrong. Plus people seem to miss the whole point of Prop 87. Oil companies pay nothing to drill here!! The $4 billion in ten years will go to push alternative fuels that in the long run will free us of our dependency on oil. I live in the central valley and one of the things I see every morning is the coat of smog that surrounds us. This prop will also push to clean California’s air by 25%. Yes its hard to trust the government with money, but this is a step forward that we must take eventually.

Brian Meano's idea looks brilliant to me! The only issue is dealing with corrosion from seawater and the moving parts that are underwater. But, in today's high tech world those issues should be overcome. I don't support 87. Why? Because I don't trust whoever will be in charge of spending the money! How much of the money collected will directly go to research? I'm sure like other initiatives like this it will be a very small percentage. Remember several years ago the 25 cent tax on cigarettes that was passed in CA by a proposition? Has it cured cancer yet? Nah! What has been the benefit of that? Tobacco is still winning and smokers are still smoking and dieing and paying 25cents extra. ....and now might pay even more with the current prop. Also, everyone whines about Big Oil profits. In reality compared to many other companies in this country it is small. Exxon profit margin is only about 10%. So yeah they made billions in profit but look at the revenue. The revenue is huge because we are driving and consuming more than ever before. There isn't one person I bet who reads this site who doesn't buy gas. Cracks me up when I see Santa Cruz organos driving gross polluting 15 year old Volvos and they call them selves environmentalists. If you really don't like Big Oil then go get a horse or a bike. So back on profity margins take a good look at other company margins. Exxon is on the low end! Has anyone complained about Google's profits? Their margins are huge! Check out health care companies. Their profit margins are really huge. This is why their stocks go up and up and up and Exxon's is below average. If you work for a publicly traded company just take a look at your company's profit margins. I bet they beat Exxon's. So Vote no on 87. The money WE will pay is better spent elsewhere.

why do we need a prop 87 to further research into alternative fuels?

Taxing independant California oil companies so that some rich guys can start there own empire of alternative fuel producing incoporations..... It sounds like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Why do we need to have prop 87 to do something that someone should just want to do. I think everyone wants alternatives for fosil fuels. And no one really wants new taxes.

So why do we need prop 87?

Prop 87 is a poorly designed scheme to support a good cause. I would contend that no one here is arguing against clean air, alternative fuels, et al. However, just because Prop 87 is a potential way to get there does not mean that it is the best (or even good) way to do so.

Prop 87 will raise gas prices, will increase our dependence on foreign oil, will hurt the state economy of California, and will barely make a dent in progressing alternative fuel research.

The big problem with everyone's argument here is that they forget about potential reactions from Big Oil. Is any global corporation going to sit back and accept the new gas tax when it is more profitable for them to temporarily abandon drilling in California? No, because that way there is less oil (North American oil no less) which means they can charge more for gas AND not have to pay into California's oil company tax. This increases our demand for foreign oil because gas consumption will not significantly decrease. And since the oil companies wouldn't be drilling in California, they would not be subject to fund any alternative energy research.

This leaves the state of California in a worse position because not only are we paying more for gas, not only are we getting no additional funding for alternative energy, not only are we "funding terrorism" even more. But we are harming our economy because of the loss of jobs and the loss of oil sales in California.

Also, raising the price of gas will have virtually no effect on reducing consumption. Gas is an inelastic product meaning that variability in price does not have a substantial effect on demand. It is similar to cigarettes and Prop 86. The idea is that raising the price of cigarettes will discourage people from smoking, but in reality the politicians know (and are expecting) that the demand for cigarettes will not significantly change, which equals easy profit for them.

I could continue on with by rambling, but I think I have made my best points. I'll close with this reminder: Everyone here wants clean air, oil independence, and alternative fuels, but Prop 87 is the wrong platform for that goal. Draft a better solution and I will vote for it. A vote against Prop 87 is by no means support for Bug Oil, nor is it anti-environmental.

The economic illiteracy represented by the Jacobins wanting to lynch oil companies is truly astounding. Eeeeeverything's a conspiracy by business, including a lemonade stand.

They can't seem to understand that your taxes become my taxes, and vice versa. The bureaucratic class is the beneficiary of all this fighting, and to the extent that many of these posters are members of the bureaucracy, you can understand their motive.

Basically, we ALL are tax collectors, collecting from each other and delivering it to the bureaucracy.

The economic illiteracy represented by the Jacobins wanting to lynch oil companies is truly astounding. Eeeeeverything's a conspiracy by business, including a lemonade stand.

They can't seem to understand that your taxes become my taxes, and vice versa. The bureaucratic class is the beneficiary of all this fighting, and to the extent that many of these posters are members of the bureaucracy, you can understand their motive.

Basically, we ALL are tax collectors, collecting from each other and delivering it to the bureaucracy.

The economic illiteracy represented by the Jacobins wanting to lynch oil companies is truly astounding. Eeeeeverything's a conspiracy by business, including a lemonade stand.

They can't seem to understand that your taxes become my taxes, and vice versa. The bureaucratic class is the beneficiary of all this fighting, and to the extent that many of these posters are members of the bureaucracy, you can understand their motive.

Basically, we ALL are tax collectors, collecting from each other and delivering it to the bureaucracy.

R. Denney: There are plenty of economists who disagree with you--and quite literate ones at that, including Stanford Professor and Hoover (as in conservative think tank) Paul Rover which we covered more recently at http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2006/10/arguments_again.html

I guess we should have no severance taxes on oil like Texas and every other state that produces a significant amount of oil. I admit it's been a long time since I took Econ 1a--but just exaxtly what is it you are saying? We should give oil away to the oil companies?

Joe,
I agree with you on all counts. But, do we have any other choices ? we have to start somewhere, and do something about it; we are far behind already.
At somepoint we have to :
1. tie the bell on the BigO cat
2. improve our air quality
3. less dependent on oil.

It is getting worse every passing day.

Frank, I was referring to some whose beginning agenda is that Big Oil is able to print money, etc. If that was so, you or I would simply put all our resources into those stocks and live the high life. Return to capital in oil stocks is not as good as in other industries, and Big Oil's most strident critics often are owners (stockholders, through their pension funds,etc.)of the companies themselves. Such childish notions, or shall I say willful ignorance, will result in nonsense legislation, accomplishing nothing.

As far as severance tax goes, matching other states is not illogical. Hopefully, the states don't start competing to see who can be the highest, 'cause it all just adds to production cost, and comes out of our pocket.

Re: energy alternatives, let's get going. Viable alternatives are here now--let's use them and support them but let them stand on their own, to prove their viability. I'm willing to spend more for a better long-term outcome (example: solar shingles).

i really don't care..uhhh i'm just supposed to write an essay...yeaaaaaa....i'm in 8th grade

billjo we do have another choice, it just isn't written yet. If you really want progress, Prop 87 is a step to the side and maybe a little to the back, not forward. The next election is not far enough in the future to be too late. I think though that if we choose this path, it may make for more difficulty in the future to get us going in the right direction. The best we can all do is press the state and federal congressmen and women to propose a legitimate solution with mandated progress (unlike Prop 87) so that we can start fixing our problems.

My big problem with Prop 87 is that it is not setup to reduce oil/gas consumption but rather to redirect oil company profits to the government. There are ways that the government can impose caps on our oil/gas usage AND control gas prices AND increase government revenue for the state to fund their alternative energy projects.

One such way would be to offer incentives for oil companies to COME to California. Taxing them drives them away. If we can get the oil companies into California, and impose government regulations such as mandatory funding/research by the oil companies, then the alternative fuels will get funded. Companies who want to come to our state and get our incentives and use our oil will welcome this for reduced cost (no trucking it across the country to get here) and marginally higher profits (which causes our gas prices to fall). In addition, the state would have to control the output, much like OPEC does, except for the purpose of slowly nursing us off of oil.

This solution still has some problems which need to be addressed, but it gives us: real alternative fuel funding, economic growth, lower gas prices, a controlled weening off of oil, and most importantly mandated results.

Forgot to add that one of Prop 87's huge flaws is that oil company taxes are its income source to fund alternative fuel research, but as oil companies leave to avoid higher operating costs, so too goes that funding source i.e. no real alternative fuel funding.

This Prop is good in theory, horrible in practice. Did any of you who support this actually take the time to research it, or did you just believe the ads from Bill Clintion on the TV. This Prop will not tax oil company profits, but rather production. California already has the highest oil tax production in the U.S.. That is why we pay the most for gas. So if we add an additional 50% tax, you don't think the oil companies will increase gas prices? Think again. If this prop passes, the 50 memeber board it creates will be there for a minimum of 20 years. That means, if we do not like what they are doing, though crap! This board will also not have to offer competitive bidding to get the funds provided by this prop. That means, any board member can get money for a company they like without seeing if another company can do the job for cheaper. This is a TOTAL CONFLICT OF INTREST!!!! So before you blindly agree to vote yes. please use your brains and get some info on this prop. BAD FOR CALIFORNIA!!!

Well Christine,if you paid for your education you
should get a refund.I work for big oil and if you(or anyone else)
dont think they will get their money back if this
thing passes you are out of your mind! Also this
initiative smells of Hollyweird money and it's ilk
all the way.Bill Clinton's definition of what the
meaning of "is" is wont help either. I wonder how
many people could have been fed with the money wasted
by big oil and hollywood
on this crap.Hollywood and big oil are as evil as they
come. But it's ok because I will get paid either way!

Well, reason prevailed and the measure went down in defeat. Once again the rational minds prevailed over the Hollywood walnut-brains and prevented California from shooting itself in the foot.

Well, reason prevailed and the measure went down in defeat. Once again the rational minds prevailed over the Hollywood walnut-brains and prevented California from shooting itself in the foot.

I see that the money you (the PPIC) spent on the Analysis Poll (61% in favor) was just as well spent as the $Billions would have been.

So much for your stupid poll. The taxpayers of this state are not fooled by this BS.

Your money would have been far better spent on actually researching alternative fuels and/or vehicle fuel systems, rather than ramming it down everyone's throats.

It's pretty easy for Warren Beatty to slam oil companies. He doesn't have to personally worry about the price of gas at the pump, unlike most of California.

The last two comments in particular demonstrate confusion about the poll being referenced in this article. It was taken by a non profit, non partisan organization, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). The poll has all sorts of useful information about Californians' attitudes about the environment. This valuable organization produces all sorts of surveys, polls, and studies about public policy issues that matter to California as a whole.

As is true with just about any measure, if you have enough money and can spend it, you can defeat it.

A useful analysis would be to look at all 13 ballot props. I would bet you that the side that won had the most money behind it.

But you are really confusing apples and oranges here. The money spent by the yes on 87 campaign has nothing to do with this poll.

And if the oil companies want to tell Californians where to spend and not spend money--including the individuals who gave their personal money to Prop 87, they need only look in the mirror. They spent far more than the proponents of this measure and we now remain the only state not to have an oil severance tax that produces any significant oil.

"If you have enough money and can spend it, you can defeat any measure?" dost sayeth the retard. You really give no credit to the idea that people in California can actually think. Imagine that.

There's no apples and oranges comparision here, in spite of your efforts to say there is.

I have no problem with finding alternative fuels. The price of gasoline in this state is outrageous. Prop 87 would have increased that gas price. Again, I'm all in favor of reducing emission AND lowering our dependence on foreign oil.

What I object to is forcing doing so on taxpayers and people who are effected by gas prices the most - California citizens & motorists (and, by the way, those who take mass transit would not be unaffected by this). I don't think it's proper for government to be the ones funding the research. The capital is best left in private hands, which is my point about the millions wasted (on both sides) on this ballot measure.

To deny the passing of the proposition would not have raised gas prices is just ridiculous. The 'big oil' companies would have no doubt REDUCED their production. I'm no scholar of microeconomics, but, isn't there that little theory that all other things being equal, lower supply met with the same demand equals increased price?

Don't we already pay enough here for gas? Why not incentivize use of e85 (a huge plus for emissions) or electric car production? There's got to be a better way.

Whether it is yes or no, this prop. created lot of awareness. Thats good.

If you have noticed, the oil prices were gradually declining for the last 3 months, and now it has started raising, exactly from Tuesday.

price manipulation and greediness !!!

siralex20012001 seems to have a problem with oil companies. I have a large solar system and can tell you for a fact it is NOT worth the investment. At least not in N. CA. Maybe down south in la la land where the sun shines 370 days a year it will work .. but not here. Bring back the nukes for power, get rid of the lawyers, the tree huggers and life will go on. God am I glad that prop didn't pass. More government!

Fieldstone Energy Secures Funding

Tulsa, Okla.—Fieldstone Energy has announced it has secured initial funding for further development of ocean wave technology and river run hydroelectric green energy generation. The funding was awarded from ELC Corporation, a private equity stakeholder in Portland, Ore.
It is just a matter of time now.... An important lesson that I have learned in life. Sometimes, a person can win by losing.

SirAlexAlex, You made a lot of sense.

All of you who supported Prop 87 please visit my www.yes-on-87.org website. I am seeking a full refund from the oil companies to all those who donated to the yes side because the oil companies lied in their commercials and in some of their printed statements, as did others who cohorted with them.

Example, the California Chamber of Commerce stated that this proposition would cost 4 billion a year when the proposition would have received 4 billion over TEN YEARS. What a huge and irresponsible lie that was, and it is not excuseable. There were other lies, and you can find them on my website, www.yes-on-87.org

The naysayers claims just don't hold water. The bottom line is with all the blogging going on, watchdogs of all sorts would have helped make prop 87 a resounding success and would have made sure all the money was spent in the best possible way.

We have other ways of using fuel. we run a trucking company and our mission when we started was to be cleaner and green. biodiesel is one way, but it will take all options to convert. also running trucks slower and with heaver loads will cut the smog. we are reg'd to 80,000 lbs we can haul twice that. just think haul twice the load and use about the same fuel and produce the same smog. that could happen overnight cut the smog out of a truck in half. make 1 160,000lbs load instead if 2 80,000 loads. just an idea that can work now. as to the weight on the bridges many trucks already sit on bridges 3 or more at a time in trafic bunched up so the extra weight is there now. heaver trucks and longer trucks will equal out to the same.

Mr. Meano,
I am glad to see you have put to use some of the funds you have due to stealing from your room mate days after his death. He may only have had one daughter to leave these things to, but I am sure you are much more deserving than the 8 year old child was.

Post a comment