Prop 87 Gets 86ed
Californians fail to support a progressive energy policy.
By Somerset Perry, Georgetown University
Monday November 13, 2006
While the rest of the nation voted for progress on Nov. 7, voters in California failed to take a progressive step towards energy independence by voting against Prop. 87. Called by all the Clean Alternative Energy Act and by many the most expensive proposition campaign in California history, the proposition would have taxed oil producers and invested the money in alternative energy research and production. The tax, called a ‘severance tax,’ is similar to laws that are already in place in Alaska, Louisiana, and even Texas, and would have made oil companies pay a tax on every barrel they take out of the ground. In rejecting the measure, Californians allowed themselves to be fooled by Big Oil, even though a host of famous politicians and celebrities, including Bill Clinton, vocally supported the proposal.
The proposition was an opportunity for California to continue its trail-blazing in the alternative energy field and the fight against global warming, as well as bolster its long history of leadership on environmentalism. From the recent bipartisan passage of state law AB32, which calls for a cap on greenhouse-gas emissions statewide, and a 25 percent reduction by 2020, and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s support of tidal energy research, to John Muir and the establishment of Yellowstone National Park, the people of California have a history of conservationism that is unparalleled. Unfortunately, they voted for conservatism over conservationism when they rejected Proposition 87.
Global warming will be the defining issue of our generation and alternative energy, along with energy consumption reduction, is our main weapon against it. Prop. 87 would have allocated $4 billion dollars for the research and development of alternative energy, a welcome contribution in a field that is underfunded by the current administration, according to the New York Times. The alternative energy business has begun to grow and may soon boom, especially in California where a combination of progressive energy proponents, clean tech whiz kids, and willing venture capitalists hope to make it the next Dotcom Boom. In California and other places such as Cape Cod, the private sector is already taking the important steps that Prop. 87 would have encouraged.
But because of its unique necessity in reversing the cataclysmic effects of global warming, alternative energy cannot be left to develop at its own pace. Businesses’ ultimate motive is profit, but the world needs clean sources of energy now. By providing subsidies that align this need with the profit motive, Prop. 87 would have allowed the business sector, universities, and non-profit research institutions to pursue that goal. If we do not enact such policies now, we will pay dearly in the future.
One of the main arguments against the tax is economic: It would raise oil prices for the average Californian, who, according to a multi-million dollar ad campaign sponsored by Chevron and other oil companies, already pays some of the highest oil taxes in the nation. This is simply false. Prop. 87 would make it illegal for oil companies to pass the cost of the tax onto consumers. In addition, even if it weren’t illegal, the laws of economics would keep Californians from experiencing anything aside from a negligible increase in prices. Every expert agrees with this interpretation, from Stanford economics professor Paul Romer to San Diego oilman Chris Hall, who said plainly, “I can’t pass [the tax] on. I’m a price taker and not a price maker. I don’t determine the market.” Seeing the resulting damage to their profits, the oil companies poured money into opposing Prop 87.
Opponents of the law said it would increase California’s importation of foreign oil. Although market forces would make California import more out-of-state or foreign oil as a consequence of the rise of instate prices in the short term, this temporary increase would be offset when the $4 billion dollars invested in alternative energy resources yield returns through the development of efficient and affordable petroleum-free energy sources.
As California leads the way toward sustainable living, the defeat of Prop. 87 should be only a bump in the road. Californians can and should continue to take steps every-day to reduce their carbon footprint, and, if the chance comes again, pass the next incarnation of Prop. 87.
--------
Comments
|
!
John Muir didn’t establish Yellowstone National Park – it was Yosemite National Park that he successfuly promoted!
— Harold Wood - Nov 13, 11:38 PM - #The $0.51 per gal. corporate welfare to the oil refiners for adding 5.6% corn 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
— Charlie Peters - Nov 14, 02:13 AM - #(510) 537-1796
Clean Air Performance Professionals
I don’t understand your logic here, Mr. Peters. Could you elaborate?
— Somerset Perry - Nov 14, 11:25 AM - #Ethanol is a dead letter; a pork project of the highest order that serious Democrats shouldn’t be pimping.
Prop 87, I’m still on the fence. Alternative energy sources are good, discriminating against specific industries because they make convenient bogeymen is bad.
— Joe - Nov 14, 10:39 PM - #Tax gas. Start in a year, progressively adding 50-cents a gallon tax until you get up to about $2/gallon additional tax.
That will provide the incentive needed.
Use the money to fund public transportation.
— Bob Kastigar - Nov 16, 04:13 PM - #I agree with Mr. Kastigar. Oil prices should be higher, much higher. In Europe they are and have been at approximately $5 per gallon for many years. High oil prices is the ONLY thing that will drive the expansion and improvement of public transportation. The is no long term future for the big oil industry. We have to develop alternative solutions NOW!
— Ann-Sofie - Nov 17, 09:19 AM - #Prop 87 is an important cause but a faulty vehicle. I think the main reason that Californians voted against Prop 87 is not because they don’t care about the environment or where manipulated by Big-Oil, but because they saw that the drafting of the legislation itself contained serious flaws.
— Rose Hickman - Nov 17, 11:33 AM - #The Sacramento Bee, a rather liberal newspaper, even urged voters to reject Prop 87- the newspaper has a brief editorial piece on the subject if anyone is interested- see the link. Prop 87 had worthy intentions, but I think that voters made the right decision in rejecting faulty legislation when they deserve something more transparent and sustainable.
Oops here’s the link:
— Rose Hickman - Nov 17, 11:34 AM - #http://www.sacbee.com/674/story/26638.html
I am a bit bummed the 87 didn’t pass. But the author makes it sound like Californians are setting a bad example. Which is ludicrous as we lead on environmental legislation regardless of his assertion about other states having a similar tax (I’m betting not nearly the same level that was on our ballot).
This bill did not pass for a number of reasons including the aforementioned sloppy legislation, the fact that we are sick of propositions asking us to increase taxes, distrust of all that has to do with gas prices as ours are inexplicably higher than the rest of the US, and of course the very crafty and expensive anti87 campaings put on by big oil.
— Jeff Mium - Nov 17, 05:43 PM - #Charlie Peters does not exist. He is a fabrication of the oil companies’ campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt against Prop 87. He has submitted the same response to every pro-87 opinion on the net. Voters in Ca missed a big opportunity with 87. Many of the papers in CA went against 87 because they don’t like policy and budgeting decisions made at the ballot box. What they missed, or failed to acknowledge is that the legislature does not have the political will to enact legislation as bold as 87. The reps are owned by the oil companies and the dems want oil money to fund their ongoing majorities in both the senate and the assembly. It would help if you people took the time to read the initiative so you knew what you were talking about. 87 provided a temporary funding stream to rush alternatives to the market place, had as tough or tougher accountability standards than any existing government agency. As far as the bogey man issue, if the voters wouldnt approve a tax on big oil, they surely wont pass a gas tax on themselves. This was an opportunity lost not just for CA but for the rest of the nation.
— kim jorgensen - Nov 21, 12:59 AM - #In response to Mr. Mium, I am a proud Californian and I do believe that we lead the United States, if not the world, in the search for sustainable energy sources. The rejection of Prop. 87 by us Californians was more standing still than a step in the wrong direction, but the various motives for sustainable energy make it an issue in which we cannot stand still. Hopefully, a similar proposition that corrects the faults of 87 will be proposed soon so we can continue to lead the drive towards sustainability.
— Somerset Perry - Nov 27, 01:38 PM - #The Campaign of fear generated about $150,000,000.00 pay day but a yes vote in my opinion would move the Ethanol/ Methanol H2 game forward faster.
— Charlie Peters - Dec 15, 03:46 AM - #——-Original Message——-
From: governor@govmail.ca.gov [mailto:governor@govmail.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:52 PM
To: David Walker
Subject: Re:RE: ,…, CNET News.com
Green-tech pros eye cash in carbon
Thank you for your letter regarding our environment. I appreciate hearing from constituents who are concerned about protecting California’s natural resources.
California is known around the world for its incredible beaches, magnificent natural parks and beautiful sky. Our state has been a leader in protecting and managing these resources for the past half century. I want you to know that I am committed to ensuring that all natural resources are protected and maintained so that Californians can continue to enjoy these treasures.
Since coming into office, I have created an ocean protection plan to protect our coastline against offshore drilling and improve the water quality of our ocean. In addition, I established the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, which is the largest conservancy in California, preserving and protecting 25 million acres in the Sierra Nevada range. To further protect California’s environment, I will continue to support the Clean Air Act to help reduce the amount of air pollution in our state. And because some of the biggest contributors to air pollution are the vehicles on the road, I created the “Breathe Easier” campaign to buy the dirtiest old cars and scrap them, allowing motorists to purchase cleaner cars instead.
Our future is in biofuels and hydrogen, not polluting petroleum fuels. That’s why I created the California Hydrogen Highway, and we now have dozens of hydrogen fueling stations across the state and many hydrogen cars and buses on the road. I also have supported the development of solar and wind technologies to promote clean and safe sources of energy.
Again, thank you for writing to me. It is heartening to know that Californians care about the future of our Golden State
Sincerely,
— Charlie Peters - Jun 13, 03:51 PM - #Arnold Schwarzenegger
——- Original Message ——-
From: <governor@govmail.ca.gov>
To: <cappcharlie@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:04 PM
Subject: Re:“Conservation may limit global warming”(LA) Times / February 28, 2007
Thank you for your letter on an issue I take to heart – fighting global climate change. I appreciate that you took the time to share your concern about the impact global climate change has on California. I’m committed to addressing this issue – we know the science, we see the threat and the time for action is now. That’s why I worked with members of our Legislature to pass the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). AB 32 established California as a national leader in the fight against climate change. We established a program for the capping and reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and California is set to reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. While California leads the way, we must work with our neighbors in the fight. I’ve partnered with the governors of Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona to create the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, a joint strategy to combat global climate change. Like AB 32, the agreement establishes a regional cap and reduction program for GHG emissions, as well as a framework for developing a similar national program. To reduce GHG emissions and also decrease California’s reliance on foreign oil, I have established the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation. By 2020, the LCFS will reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by at least 10 percent – the same as removing 3 million cars from the road. Through our efforts to fight climate change, we can secure both a stronger economy and a cleaner environment for future generations. Our programs foster economic growth by promoting the development of green technology. As the computer industry and the Internet built the economy of Silicon Valley, green-clean technology can be the next great economic wave for California. Thanks again for your interest in climate change and for writing to share your thoughts. I truly appreciate your personal commitment to the future of our great state. Sincerely, Arnold Schwarzenegger — Charlie Peters - Jul 10, 04:44 AM - #NO on AB118
Corn ethanol policy is good for gasoline refiners
Corn ethanol policy increases oil use and increases oil profit
The proposed car tax of AB 118 Nunez is an oil company welfare program
Italy used public/private partnerships as a business model in the early ’40s
In my opinion the corn ethanol waiver allowed in the 2005 fed energy bill would lower gas prices, improve miles per gal, lower oil use and improve the air.
Your phone book lists your elected officials, sharing your opinion with the folks that make our rules might help
Clean Air Performance Professionals
— Charlie Peters - Jul 13, 03:43 AM - #The Farce About Ethanol…
By State Senator Tom McClintock, Free Republic, 06/28/2007
In response to my blog, “Ethanol Economics,” Former Secretary of State Bill Jones (now Chairman of Pacific Ethanol), made five key points in his piece, “The Facts About Ethanol.” Just for fun, let’s run “The Facts About Ethanol” through the old fact-checker:
“Today, ethanol is about 65 cents per gallon cheaper than gasoline in the California market.” That’s only after taxpayers and consumers have kicked in a subsidy of $1.50 per gallon – or $7 billion a year paid into the pockets of ethanol producers to hide the staggering price of ethanol production. And even with the subsidy, the California Energy Commission estimates that the new CARB edict will INCREASE the price per gallon by between 4.2 and 6.5 cents – on top of the tax subsidies. Ouch.
“Allowing a 10 percent blend of ethanol into gasoline provides a 4 percent supply increase to the marketplace at a price far below current gasoline prices.” Not only is the price far ABOVE current gasoline prices (see above) but Bill ignores the fact that ethanol produces less energy than gasoline – meaning you’ll have to buy more gallons for the same mileage.
“CARB’s recent vote reduces our reliance on oil from overseas…” Let’s walk through the numbers again. One acre of corn produces 350 gallons of ethanol; the CARB edict will require 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol, in turn requiring 4.3 million acres of corn for ethanol production. Yet California only has 11 million acres devoted to growing crops of any kind. And that, in turn, means an increasing reliance on foreign agricultural produce, shifting our energy dependence from King Abdullah to Hu Jintao.
“Further, it sends a signal to companies like ours to continue to invest in California production to help make this state energy independent.” Yes, you can sell a lot more ethanol with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone. You got me there. But it also sends a signal to the market to raise prices on every product that relies upon corn for both food and grain feed – meaning skyrocketing prices for everything from corn meal to milk. Remember the tortilla riots in Mexico in January?
“Pacific Ethanol uses state-of-the-art production practices that reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 40 percent compared to conventional gasoline.” Unless Pacific Ethanol has re-written the laws of chemistry, ethanol is produced by converting glucose into two parts ethanol and two parts carbon dioxide. The chemical equation is C6H12O6 = 2C2H5OH + 2CO2. (Memo to Bill: If you’re not using this formula, you’re not producing ethanol. And if you are, you’re also producing lots of carbon dioxide. Better check.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1858095/posts
* NO on “car tax” AB118 (Nunez)
* Clean Air Performance Professionals (CAPP) supports a Smog Check inspection & repair audit, gasoline oxygen cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFÉ credit to cut car impact over 50% in 1 year.
* Some folks believe corn ethanol in gasoline increases oil use and oil profit
* Ethanol uses lots of water
* A Smog Check audit would cut toxic car impact in ½ in 1 year. Chief Sherry Mehl, DCA/BAR, has never found out if what is broken on a Smog Check failed car gets fixed, never
* A corn ethanol waiver would stop a $1 billion California oil refinery welfare program coming from the federal government @ $0.51 per gallon of ethanol used
* About 60,000 barrels per day of the oil used by cars is allowed by the “renewable fuel” CAFE credit
— Charlie Peters - Aug 8, 11:52 PM - #A Background Research Paper on Corn Ethanol
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/14/18440750.php
— Charlie Peters - Aug 16, 02:53 AM - #Bill Jones as subsidized ethanol magnate
* From Alan Bock, Orange County Register (blog), December 4th, 2007 * Here’s an interesting piece from the Mercury-News on the “post-politics” of Bill Jones, former Republican Assemblyman and Secretary of State Bill Jones, who has now become one of California’s biggest Welfare Queens as an entrepreneur in the subsidized world of ethanol. His family had some farmland near Madera, and for years he’s been eyeing corn likker — ethanol – as a way to maximize profits. Since retiring from politics, but using his political influence, he’s becoming a magnate, having formed Pacific Ethanol. Having pocketed $15 million from selling stock after the company went public, he’s looking for a controversial $14 million tax break from the state to build two more ethanol plants. * I remember when Bill Jones used to come in for editorial boards and talk about how he was a limited-government conservative eager to get rid of boondoggles and use taxpayers’ money responsibly. Now he’s profiting from one of the biggest boondoggles in California history. Sad case — but then he’s pocketed $15 million and I haven’t. * http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/ * Clean Air Performance Professionals — Charlie Peters - Dec 5, 10:29 PM - #Should Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger consider a $17/gallon “fee” on corn fuel ethanol use?
* Lower price for food, gas, water, beer and cleaner air… and… funds for the budget from oil profit * Clean Air Performance Professionals — Charlie Peters - Apr 17, 02:49 PM - #What was the cause of death of Alexander Farrell, 46, expert on alternative fuels?
www.sfgate.com/cgi
— Charlie Peters - May 3, 11:39 PM - #Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160 ( new number )
RE: IMRC policy
Are carpetbaggers: Booz Allen, Carlyle Group, Applus, Meineke Car Care Centers and CARB working a deal to take CA small business “Smog Check”?
——- Original Message ——-
From: Rocky_Carlisle@dca.ca.gov
To: cappcharlie@earthlink.net
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 3:36 PM
Subject: IMRC meeting
Hi Charlie,
You missed the first part of the last IMRC meeting when we announced we will no longer transcribe IMRC meetings since it is an extravagant expense that the state cannot afford. As you know, we are under no statutory requirement to do so. All that is required are meeting minutes. Therefore, when possible, we will record the meeting but when a recording is not possible, we will simply post the minutes of the meeting. Let me know of you have any questions.
Regards,
Rocky Carlisle
Executive Officer
IMRC
(916) 322-8249
Charlie Peters
Cell: (415) 516-9909
Fax: (510) 537-9675
Clean Air Performance Professionals
cappcharlie@earthlink.net
CAPP contact: Charlie Peters (510) 537-1796 cappcharlie@earthlink.net
— Charlie Peters - Oct 11, 04:35 PM - #