In my opinion Prop 87 is good for California and good for the country. We have an energy crisis, a climate crisis, and a terrorism crisis all of them tied to oil. We need to do something and do it now. If you agree with the discussion below (and a series of subsequent and previous posts) please email a link to this blog to ten California voters and ask them to email to ten others.As Tom Freidman put it in the New York Times: “Here’s the basic story: This Nov. 7, Californians will be asked to vote yes or no on Proposition 87, a ballot initiative that would impose a higher extraction fee on oil pumped in California. (Up to now, oil companies in California have paid a very low extraction fee compared with those in other states – a rip-off they want to keep.) The new funds raised by Prop 87, explained the San Francisco Chronicle, “would be used to finance research and development of alternative fuels in universities; education campaigns; and subsidies to consumers who buy vehicles that use alternative fuels and businesses that produce and distribute alternative fuels. … Oil companies would be taxed between 1.5 percent and 6 percent on oil production depending on the price of oil per barrel. The tax would end by 2017 or when the tax generates $4 billion, whichever occurs first.”

In one state (California) they have raised almost $100 m (the last Presidential election each candidate spent about $125 million in all 50 states!) to spread their mis-information. Money can buy a lot and they are buying it. This blog is about the choice we have to make.
We have a choice to make. A choice between:

  1. Between one in five California children having asthma and leukemia causing benzene and other volatile organics in our air and MTBE in our water or clean air.
  2. Between an energy crisis, a climate crisis and a terrorism crisis and being hostage to oil or freedom form Arab oil.
  3. Between the “bought politicians and bought endorsers” and business as usual of Big Oil or the scientists, technologists and entrepreneurs that can create an alternate renewable energy economy for our planet.
  4. Between the $142b in subsidies the oil interests have managed to influence their way to (while they criticize the few billion the alternate energy business has gotten), and the cleaner and cheaper fuel alternatives that are possible that the oil interests don’t want us to have.
  5. Between America and the world held hostage to oil and a 20% decline in global GDP Prime Minister Blair talked about recently and new jobs in the new energy economy and eventually accelerating growth.
  6. Between our planet melting down, 200 million refugees and hundreds of billions of weather related damage and fewer intense hurricanes, fewer forest fires and safer polar bears.

We can have a new rural economy, a vibrant Central Valley and an energized Silicon Valley with a Yes vote on 87. We have a choice on our future and our children’s future. Is this a Darwinian IQ test or what?

Do you think the oil interests are in a hurry to create alternatives to the fuels or help with efficiency improvements to reduce gasoline consumption? We need Prop 87 to do that.

There is a lot of confusing information out in the media on the issues. Will gas prices go up or down? Is there accountability (Yes on 87 says yes and the other guys say no) or does this create a bureaucracy (Yes on 87 says no and the other guys say Yes)?
You do have to answer the question of who you will trust. Do you believe Al Gore or the Chamber of Commerce (paid $345,000 by the oil companies to endorse them?), Bill Clinton or the Firefighters (paid over $100,000 to endorse them?), Senator Feinstein and Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, (all unpaid) or the Law Enforcement organization that I understand was paid to endorse the oilie position? Were their economists paid? Nobel Prize winning Stanford economist Prof Paul Romer says prices will not go up and he was not paid! Do you believe the oil companies and their “bought endorsers”?” Who do you trust more?

As Tom Freidman says: “Passage of Prop 87 would be huge”. Do you trust him? Vote Yes on 87!

Advertisements

In my opinion Prop 87 is good for California and good for the country. We have an energy crisis, a climate crisis, and a terrorism crisis all of them tied to oil. We need to do something and do it now. If you agree with the discussion below (and a series of subsequent and previous posts) please email a link to this blog to ten California voters and ask them to email to ten others.

As Tom Freidman put it in the New York Times: “Here’s the basic story: This Nov. 7, Californians will be asked to vote yes or no on Proposition 87, a ballot initiative that would impose a higher extraction fee on oil pumped in California. (Up to now, oil companies in California have paid a very low extraction fee compared with those in other states – a rip-off they want to keep.) The new funds raised by Prop 87, explained the San Francisco Chronicle, “would be used to finance research and development of alternative fuels in universities; education campaigns; and subsidies to consumers who buy vehicles that use alternative fuels and businesses that produce and distribute alternative fuels. … Oil companies would be taxed between 1.5 percent and 6 percent on oil production depending on the price of oil per barrel. The tax would end by 2017 or when the tax generates $4 billion, whichever occurs first.”

In one state (California) they have raised almost $90 m (the last Presidential election each candidate spent about $125 million in all 50 states!) to spread their mis-information. Money can buy a lot and they are buying it. Part I talked about why gas prices won’t go up. Part II talked about how and why prices for gasoline will decline. I discussed unfair, maybe unethical if not illegal tactics in Part III. What about the costs to society? Part IV is about Health costs, defense costs, foreign policy costs, and other costs? This is about benefits.

There are benefits to be had from freedom from the oilie stranglehold beyond the obvious clean energy, less pollution and freedom from being a hostage, stopping the feeding of terrorism, etc.

Prop 87 will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. It will create a new Cleantech Silicon Valley. A dollar invested in alternative energy is much cheaper in “oil production” than the dollar that won’t be invested in oil production. Chevron’s much touted Tahiti oil field will cost $4 or so for each gallon of capacity. The same investment would produce many times more ethanol capacity as a cleaner renewable fuel for the same capital investment. Saving oil through efficiency improvements is even cheaper. But it will all involve Silicon Valley like investment in clean technologies, new companies, entrepreneurs and technologists. They will create jobs that will spread California’s products throughout the world. Many new Google’s and Yahoo’s and Ebay’s will be created in this new industry. Many new products will be created – more efficient cars, batteries for plug-in hybrids, cleaner gasoline replacements, solar electricity.
A Saudi sheik is often quoted as having warned decades ago that the stone age did not end for the lack of stone. What is not reported is that he went on to say that “technology is our enemy”. Why? Because technology can create alternatives. And Prop 87 will help rush technologies and alternatives to market. Maybe, finally the consumer will have a choice – including a choice to not buy gasoline. And a choice to take money from mid-east sheiks and terrorists and create jobs and wealth in California. We will harness the power of ideas from our scientists and technologists and powered by the entrepreneurial energy of our entrepreneurs, we will create an economic growth engine that California has not seen before.

But there will be one important difference between past Silicon Valley revolutions and this one. When technology entrepreneurs made phone calls cheap, made the internet widely available and affordable, made information on your fingertip a reality through Google, cured diseases through biotechnology, it did not help rural America in a significant way. But in the energy sphere, the key raw materials to replace oil will come from the Central Valley not silicon factories. The benefits of jobs and wealth will be not only be bigger but broader. The revolution will create jobs in Central Valley. Already thirteen new ethanol plants are being planned (most of them much more environmentally friendly than mid-western corn ethanol plants). Imagine the jobs! And already some of these ethanol plants have started investigating new crops beyond corn. Sweet sorghum is cheaper and better than corn as it takes little fertilizer and a lot less water than corn to grow. And it can be grown on fallow land that can not be used for food crops. Imagine making unproductive land income producing? And the first plants to make ethanol from waste will be start construction next year. Where will they end up?

Do you think the oil interests are in a hurry to create alternatives to the fuels or help with efficiency improvements to reduce gasoline consumption? We need Prop 87 to do that.

Do you believe Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Senator Feinstein and Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, (all unpaid)? Or do you believe the oil companies and their “bought endorsers”?”

As Tom Freidman says: “Passage of Prop 87 would be huge”. Vote Yes on 87!