Clean Energy Leader Opposes California Prop 10

yes to prop 10...makes perfect sense.

This guy and others are playing politics because this isn't "their baby".

Voting Yes on Prop 10 is probably the most important thing you can do to help our environment in California.

NO ON 10!!! GOT IT :)

Vote YES to Prop 10

Check out who is opposed to Prop 10 vs who supports it and their arguments:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_10_(2008) and a 'No' vote seems a lot more 'environmentally friendly'.

I say vote yes on proposition 10. It is the most wise and best thing you can do to help the future of the planet. Think smart!

The title of Prop 10 sounds good, but it basically will generate a bunch of $$$ for a guy who doesn't need anymore. And it does so for little public gain. The tax incentives are focused on natural gas powered vehicles and so won't apply (or apply only minimally) to most consumers unless/until a shift is made to provide more vehicles that run on NG. While that's much more efficient and cleaner than petroleum, it of course, is also a fossil fuel and therefore not sustainable. Vote NO!

I'm usually a 100% supporter of any clean energy/fuel funding, and admit I've been back and forth on this measure several times while doing the research. I've decided to vote NO for the following reasons. I don't really care if a billionaire gets richer or an entrepreneur makes a billion because they've found a creative way to put clean energy on the market. The end goal is to get clean energy/fuel technology out there and change our fossil fuel burning mentality. On its surface, the ballot measure seems like a pretty good idea...incentives for people to buy alternative fuel vehicles, incentives for solar and wind power, grants for demonstration projects and some education and outreach. The problem is how the funding is structured. It is over funded toward vehicles, and under funded toward clean energy/electricity and ABSENT any funding for infrastructure (necessary to support a variety of alternative fuel vehicles). Although the measure would create incentives for a variety of alternative fuel vehicles, there are only two types of cars with alternative fuel available as a practicle matter, compressed natural gas and electric. Electric vehicles make less sense because we still get most of our electricity in this state from burning coal. That leaves natural gas, which have more refueling stations available than other types of alternative fuels. There are only a very few "experimental" fueling stations for hydrogen, ethanol, biomethane, etc. You can't find them, and unless you're one of the lucky few that happens to live near one, you're not going to want to buy a vehicle that's a hassle to refuel. So I agree that this measure will have bias toward natural gas vehicles, and could send us down a path to reliance on natural gas vehicles, and I'm not convinced natural gas vehicles are the best technology. I'd like to see a measure like this provide more funding for infrastructure and provide more funding for grants for local governments to engage in refueling station projects than this proposes. I work for a local government that has wanted to get involved in a refueling station project for alternative fuels, and there isn't enough funding available. I also think the money would be better spent to provide more incentives for decentralized solar power. Photovoltaics for residences and commercial buildings makes a lot of sense, and more people would take advantage of incentives that make the initial installation cost a little more attractive.

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.