Chevron Bankrolling Opposition to California Clean Energy Initiative
Chevron Bankrolling Opposition to California Clean Energy Initiative
On Sunday, Chevron CEO David O’Reilly appeared on Meet the Press and emphasized the importance of “promoting alternatives” to fossil fuels. “Most of our companies are involved in this. I know we are.” Shell CEO John Hofmeister agreed: “There’s so much we can do in this country” on “the alternatives of wind, solar, biofuels, hydrogen.”
Chevron has a strange way of getting “involved.”
Californians will vote this November on a landmark ballot initiative, called the Clean Alternative Energy Initiative, which would “impose a wellhead tax on oil companies operating in California” to finance $4 billion towards alternative-fuel vehicles and renewable energy and conservation research.
The #1 donor to the group opposing the clean energy initiative: Chevron, which has given a whopping $3,740,000, more than three times the amount of the next 14 donors combined. Help fight back — join Kick the Oil Habit today.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
40 Responses to “Chevron Bankrolling Opposition to California Clean Energy Initiative”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
If anyone thinks the oil companies want change, ask them why they bought up patents to alternative fuel vehicles? I don’t think it was promote change.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:02 pmThe oil companies are, one hates to say it, greedy scum. This is typical: talking a good show and then working quietly against the talk. I’m in California, and I’ll be voting for the initiative. And I don’t buy Chevron gas. Or Exxon. But unfortunately all oil companies seem to be tainted by greed and dishonesty.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:16 pmSleazy, obnoxious, depraved, slime.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:21 pm[…] One hates to generalize, of course, but… Take a look at this: Chevron on the one hand, openly supporting alternative energy initiatives and strategies, while on the other, hidden, hand, financing efforts to defeat such initiatives. Fortunately, I live in California and can vote for the initiative. […]
June 21st, 2006 at 1:24 pmI watched those 3 oil CEOs on Press the Meat, and they all kept talking about going after the offshore oil and exploring other deposits in the US. You know damn well that they have no intention of doing anything about alternatives until they’ve used up every drop of oil they can get their hands on. While they discussed alternatives, they made it sound as though development would be incredibly difficult. Then how does Brazil do it? Also, Russert never brought up the fact that oil from the Alaskan pipeline is sold overeas.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:25 pmWhy is it a scandal for a company to oppose a bill that targets their specific industry with a new tax?
Why is that sleazy, depraved, etc?
June 21st, 2006 at 1:26 pmWhy anyone would WANT to support the monopoly that is the petroleum industry by driving a ‘gas guzzler’ when smaller, LIGHTER, more efficient alternative vehicles already exist… is basically contributing to the problem of fossil fuel energy dependence, oil industry control/corruption of the government and military, and further endagers our nation with respect to terrorism and misguided foreign policies.
The concept of conservation is such an enemy of greed, where’s the compromise?
June 21st, 2006 at 1:26 pmthe scandal in this case Chase, is they publically support alternative fuel research, while privetly working to kill anything that would cause them to pay for the research. Please drop the corporatist knee-jerk reaction and “think” sometime. do you really want to be beholden to the middle east to heat your home, and drive your car?
June 21st, 2006 at 1:29 pmThey talk the talk but their actions show what’s going on. Like George admitting we’re addicted to oil but doing less than nothing about it. They’re all oozing in oil and reaping record profits. Might be time to stop driving and MARCH.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:30 pmJane, et al:
Why does everyone DEMAND “oil” companies do something besides explore for and sell oil?
Why dont we demand Maytag spend a lot of their money to develop new alternatives to washing machines and dishwashers?
And Brazil is partially successful because their fuel demand is 3% of ours (not as many vehicles per capita, not even close) and they have over-dedicated sugar crops to fuel. Sugar cost went up, people protested and more sugar crop was diverted from biodiesel production and back to food. They have been successful largely because of a sustained 30-year petroleum exploration and infrastructure program.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:32 pmGo to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EV1 and then watch the movie “Who killed the electic car”.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:32 pmAnd, Chase, what about the billions in tax breaks that these companies were given? They’re not taxed, they’re given money.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:33 pmI’m not demanding the oil companies do anything. I am demanding the government in the interests of national security do something. I do think a good place to start would be a few extra taxes on the oil companies to pay for the mess they helped create.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:34 pmHa. “Make them pay for research.” Make them? This is a free-market economy broseph - why don’t you start a company that develops the technology to compete with petro driven vehicles and let oil companies do their thing. Oh yeah, it’s more fun to beat up on “Big Oil” than actually do something.
I will as soon as you drop the “knee-jerk” populist, quasi-socialist line of thinking. Besides, my position is well considered, as I’m sure yours is. We just arrive at different conclusions.
And I’m not to worried about being beholden to the middle east for oil - they are beholden to us for a market for that oil. It flows both ways.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:38 pmTape protest signs to gas pumps.
“This gas station bribes your leadership in Washington”
“This gas station helps Bush spy on you.”
June 21st, 2006 at 1:39 pmI’m demanding the people do something about this oil dependence. Many people are waiting for an authority figure to tell them what to do. Arnold was right about 85% of people need to be told what to do.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:39 pm#5 - Jane, did trueblue get in touch with you?
June 21st, 2006 at 1:41 pmI saw those monkeys on MTP - not only was it obvious that they are b.s. artists, but even when he made a “show” of asking a challenging question, Russert never followed up with facts. How did Timmy ever get to be the #1 man?
June 21st, 2006 at 1:41 pmcalif4nian:
I agree that we should end subsidies for the oil industy. It is worth noting that during the 90’s, when oil dipped as low at $12 a barrel, the industry was hemoraging money, particuarly considering the huge sunk costs that go into exploration and such.
Even more, I understand the goal of the subsides (though now they are past their prime). Oil companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, etc are competiting at every stage of the game with much larger, much wealthier state monopolies. Giving them subsudies puts some of the power of the US behind US companies and lets them at least play with companies with the full power of state owned companies behind them.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:43 pmI have to disagree Chase, with the rise of demand for oil in China, and India, the middle east is less and less beholden to us for their money. Additionaly due to the large deficit we are running up, the us dollar is in less and less demand. Part of the worry over Iran, is the creation of an oil bourse I think is the right term that will accept only euros. A more then minor problem for the U.S.
My opinion is that oil is an outdated energy form, and the sooner we get rid of the better. We won’t need to fight wars in the middle east to maintain our way of life. We can ignore the middle east, just like we ignore the continent of Africa. Yes I think oil companies should pay for research. They have caused much of the damage because of greed.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:44 pmThe oil companies deliberately shut down refineries, then complain that part of the price increase is due to the lack of refineries. They’re given billions in breaks and subsidies, they say that part of their “profit” has to go back into R&D and exploration. I always thought “Profit” was the total income minus costs?
June 21st, 2006 at 1:44 pmPlease explain the hubub? Is it illegal for Chevron to fund a campaign? Also whom do you think is going to pay for those wellhead taxes? I suspect that the Oil companies will simply pass that tax onto the comsumers.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:49 pmZookeeper, no, trueblue didn’t get in touch with me. I’ve been checking back to the pertinent Cheney thread to see if there might be a comment there, but no luck so far, and no email either. :-(
Trueblue, where are you?
June 21st, 2006 at 1:52 pmJane:
As any claim I make is met with demands for sources, can you provide sources?
PS. If you can prove oil refiners shut down plants to drive up prices, congrats, you should have a nice job with the DOJ Antitrust Div.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:54 pmLooks like Brazil uses about 8% of what the U.S.A. uses, per this source:
http://www.cia.gov/ cia/ publications/ factbook/ rankorder/ 2174rank.html
June 21st, 2006 at 1:54 pmAnd I’m not to worried about being beholden to the middle east for oil - they are beholden to us for a market for that oil. It flows both ways.
Comment by Chase
In a basic buyer/seller, free market, yes. But within an industry which the ENTIRE world economy is based, the seller holds all the cards. Buying power can only be exercised effectively on the oil industry by NOT purchasing their goods. In other words, unless we all, worldwide, suddenly give up driving and/or using ANY product based on fossil fuels.
So basically, they’ve got us “by the balls”.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:55 pmDieNowForPeace:
This is a perfect free market.
If the price is high enough, people will stop buying gas/oil and start walking and, eventually, find alternatives.
The price is sufficently low that this isnt the case.
Good try though.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:57 pmI couldnt stand listening to them myself
June 21st, 2006 at 1:58 pmTrueblue, where are you?
Comment by Jane E. Schneider
Thanks for trying, Jane. Hopefully she’ll check in.
June 21st, 2006 at 2:02 pmThis is a perfect free market.
Comment by Chase — June 21, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
LOL we have zero alternative to using oil and its the perfect free market system???
what the hell are you smoking?
June 21st, 2006 at 2:03 pm$3,740,000? How much alternative fuel research could that have bought instead?
June 21st, 2006 at 2:06 pm“Much of the world’s incremental oil demand is projected for use in the transportation sector, where there are few competitive alternatives to petroleum,” EIA
They made ‘crack-whores’ out of us as consumers. We’ve NEVER been offered alternatives, and the industry spends hundreds of billions protecting their profits (with our governments blessing), thereby undermining any chance of competition. Like Microsoft. Crappiest OS, ‘contracted’ onto PC manufacturers hard drives, monopolistically wedging all competing OS’s out of the PC market. Ask Mr. Gates, he spent TONS of money defending his many ‘free market’ strategies.
June 21st, 2006 at 2:11 pmChase - I agree with some of what you say - we cannot force the oil companies to research alternatives, but I do not like them lying and saying they are. If they are not going to do it then they should stop saying they are.
Also, if we are not being gouged then why did all of the oil companies make such huge record breaking profits? Again with the lying.
On Randi Rhoades show last night she was talking about how the US is purposely not pumping oil in Iraq to keep the supply down and the price inflated. She said (I do not know her sources as I turned the program on when she had already begun talking about this). Supposedly when the sanctions against Iraq qere lifted Sadaam was going to pump as much oil as he could. That would have depressed oil prices and Bush’s cronies would not make so much money. Therefore they find an excuse to invade and then control the oil in Iraq.
I have not had time to go to her web page and read her sources, but seems plausible to me.
June 21st, 2006 at 2:27 pm#36
June 21st, 2006 at 2:42 pmJules,
I heard that arguement before and to me it seems plausible. Although I think it was only part of the reasoning to do it. Many bad ideas came together and created the mentality to invade Iraq. I know some of the brain dead trolls will try to bash this plausible arguement all the while holding up the reasons they believe we are there. WMDs, spreading freedom, standing up to tyranny, etc. And all of that as we all know is proven to be wrong.
Another thing no one seems to mention - how much oil do you think will be left say in 20 years, anyway. I do believe the oil companies know damn well that we are nearing the end. What’s left are the dregs - which from what I understand, makes refining more difficult. Does anybody really believe that fossil fuel is endless - and taking into consideration that China is growing, again how much longer will it last? We are so short-sighted in this country. Europe is so ahead of us technologically speaking. And do you wonder why left leaning leaders are winning elections - think Spain and Italy, and then think of South America…
The right like to bash Europe, forgetting that each European country has been around for CENTURIES. Having lived through all the “isms” - communism, fascism, etc….I look upon Europe as being a grown up society, and we are just plain babies on the world stage. Each also have histories of wanting to build empire (think Rome), the results of which still affect much of the southern hemisphere. And in more recent history, the Middle East.
Until the people (especially those who choose to remain ignorant), get a grasp on history, we will remain doomed.
June 21st, 2006 at 3:01 pmThis initiative creates a $4 billion dollar socialist bureaucracy with the revenues from this tax only providing $200 million/year of funding (depending on how this poorly written initiative is interpreted, it may be $380 million/year). The damage to the California economy outweighs the benefits.
Producers are defined by this initiative as anyone who produces oil, operates a well head or has a royalty interest in the well. This is also a tax on small well service companies and land owners who have mineral rights with producing wells. Why is this tax being portrayed as a way to penalize big oil when it really penalizes small business and land owners? This is just a money grabbing scheme by socialists.
Now some may argue that California will eventually see benefits from the emergence of the alternative fuel industry. But alternative fuels are not economically competitive with fossil fuel at this time. This initiative does not provide solutions, it only damages the economy while we wait years for alternative fuel to be a realistic energy source.
According to California Legislative Analyst:
Reduction in Local Property Tax Revenues.
Local property taxes paid on oil reserves would decline under the measure, to the extent that the imposition of the severance tax reduces the value of oil reserves in the ground and therefore their assessed property value for tax purposes. The size of this impact is unknown and would depend on the price of oil, which determines both the severance tax rate and the value of oil reserves. Under certain circumstances,
existing law requires the state to offset reductions in property tax revenues
experienced by K-14 school and community college districts. To the extent that this measure reduces property tax revenues to these districts, the measure could
increase, by an unknown amount, state funding obligations for education.
Reduction in Income Tax Revenues.
Oil producers would be able to deduct the
severance tax from earned income, thus reducing their income tax liability under
the personal income tax or corporation tax. The extent to which the measure would reduce income taxes paid by oil producers is unknown, as it would depend on various factors, including whether or not an oil producer has taxable income in any given year, the amount of such income that is apportioned to California, and the tax rate applied to such income.
Potential Reduction in Gasoline and Diesel Excise and Sales Tax Revenues.
June 21st, 2006 at 3:24 pmTo the extent that the programs funded by the measure are successful in reducing the
use of oil for transportation fuels, it would reduce the amount of gasoline and
diesel excise taxes paid to the state. Similarly, it would reduce sales and use
taxes paid to the state and local governments, under certain conditions. These
impacts would be offset, to an unknown degree, by increased sales and excise
taxes paid on alternative fuels, to the extent that the measure results in an
increased use of alternative fuels that are subject to these taxes.
Potential Indirect Impacts on the Economy. In addition to the direct impacts of the measure, there are potential indirect effects of the measure that could
change the level of economic activity in the state, thereby affecting state and
local revenues. For example, by increasing the cost of oil production, the
imposition of the severance tax could result in reduced production and/or
reduced investment in new technologies to expand production. The impact on oil
production and investment would vary depending on each oil producer’s rate of
return and the measure’s impact on it. To the extent that the measure reduces
investment in oil production, the measure could result in a reduction in
economic activity, reflected, for example, in a reduction in jobs and/or capital
purchases related to the oil industry. Additionally, if the measure results in
reduced oil production, over the long term it could increase the price of oil,
which could also reduce economic activity. Any negative impact on the economy
will potentially reduce state and local revenues through reduced personal
income, corporation, and sales taxes.
lets see the first part of Hippies post, was obviously written by an some one with anti-populist sentiments, and should be rightfully ignored. I am wiling to bet he cut and pasted it off some right wing site in CA.
the second part may be legit, but since no link to the source material is provided, again it may written by one of the opponents to the bill.
The question that needs to be asked, is what is the negative impact of not pursuing alternative fuels?
At what point does our economy crumble? $4.00/gallon? how about $5.00/gallon?
Yes it will take time to make alternatives fuels competitive in the US market. However supplying a cheap alternative to gasoline will help the economy in the long run. A $1.00/gallon fuel cost leaves more money in the pockets of consumers to buy goods and services.
June 21st, 2006 at 3:50 pmThis tax is not a tax on oil companies — it will simply be passed onto consumers in the form of even higher gas prices. It’s an artificial way of leveling the economic playing field for alternative energy. I believe AE should compete on its own merits, without cheating by using the tyranny of the majority to extract profit from one energy source for it’s own ill-gotten gains.
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:38 pmThe dangers to ALL of humanity from global warming are increasing unless we act NOW. Even if you haven’t seen An Inconvenient Truth, in addition to helping with global warming, there are several other direct benefits from clean alternative energy sources — solar, wind and/or geothermal.
First, less air pollution from transportation, heating, and cooling. Second, reducing our dependence on Mideast oil and an end to the terrible war in Iraq.
Big oil companies like Chevron should start looking past their immediate bottom line, and start producing more innovative alternative energy themselves before they get put out of business. The rapidly growing demand from China and India, as well as the US, will soon use up all the remaining world oil (if global warming doesn’t destroy us first).
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:29 pm[…] Think Progress � Chevron Bankrolling Opposition to California Clean Energy Initiative June 23rd, […]
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:57 am