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).

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.

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.
To 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Thanks for trying, Jane. Hopefully she’ll check in.

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.

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”.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html

The 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?

Jane:

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.

Trueblue, where are you?