Big Oil Companies Bankroll Deceptive California Campaign Against Alternative Energy
Big Oil Companies Bankroll Deceptive California Campaign Against Alternative Energy
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has repeatedly stated that he is committed to end his state’s addiction to oil. But Schwarzenegger has refused to support Proposition 87, even though it provides one of the strongest prospects for the state to raise funds for alternative energy research and development.
The initiative would raise the extraction fee on oil pumped in California. Funds raised from Prop. 87 “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.”
Up until now, as New York Times columnist Tom Friedman points out, “oil companies in California have paid a very low extraction fee compared with those in other states — a rip-off they want to keep.” Chevron lobbyist Jack Coffey even admitted that Prop. 87 is “worth a lot of money” to the oil companies. These companies have launched the massive, deceptive “No On 87″ campaign to defeat Prop. 87. Some lowlights:
– Oil companies have concealed their funding of No On 87. According to No. on 87 campaign ads, “a coalition of taxpayers, educators, public safety officials, businesses, energy producers, Chevron Corporation and Aera Energy LLP” are funding the effort to defeat Prop. 87. But in reality, oil companies are bankrolling more than 99 percent of the $35 million campaign against initiative. Chevron and Aera have contributed more than $25 million.
– Oil companies claim that Prop. 87 will force them to raise gas prices. The No On 87 campaign’s website claims that the burden of higher production taxes will force oil companies to raise gas prices for consumers. This claim is false. The head of the American Petroleum Institute recently told Congress “big oil is powerless to control prices at the pump.” Additionally, the California Attorney General has confirmed that Prop. 87 makes it illegal for oil companies to raise gas prices to pass along the cost to consumers.
As President Clinton recently stated, Prop. 87 gives Calfornia and Gov. Schwarzenegger the “opportunity…to do something remarkable to save the planet, improve our national security and create the next generation of good jobs for the American people.” Help support the Yes On 87 Campaign HERE.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hmmmm,
October 20th, 2006 at 3:14 pmSo Ahhnold’s got his fingers in more than…
This initiative creates a $4 billion dollar 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.
October 20th, 2006 at 3:15 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.
This should be no surprise to anyone > Oil Company CEOs are corrupt devious swine > PERIOD.
October 20th, 2006 at 3:17 pmYay! Amanda!!
October 20th, 2006 at 3:25 pmToday the bought-and-paid-for Republican owned and controlled Mainstream Media blares “Court Told It Lacks Authority” in a headline regarding proposed conduct of tribunals without our foundational American Constitutional right of Habeus Corpus. Well. Let’s see: the ultimate authority in our Democratic Republic resides not in our President, or in our Congress, nor in our Senate, as all of these are chosen by We The People to represent us. Therefore, all members of our government are fundamentally subject to the will of We The People Of The United States Of America, as expressed through representatives selected through our Constitutionally Guaranteed process of Free, Fair and Open Elections. This twice-unelected administration now asserting that our courts “lack authority” was never itself actually elected by We The People Of The United States Of America through our Constitutionally mandated process of free, fair, and open elections, but rather this administration twice stole our elections through the use of Diebold Black Boxes, wholesale manipulation of the entire mainstream media, voter intimidation, fraud, and hundreds of other documented illegal, immoral, unconstitutional and illigitimate actions. Therefore, it is not in fact our courts which lack authority, but this twice unelected Administration itself which holds no legitimate authority or any other rightful claim to governance. One of 60 members of the team investigating massive FEMA fraud, waste, abuse, and neglect in the aftermath of the Katrina debacle just fired by Republican appropriations chairman Jerry Lewis, who is himself under Federal investigation for charges related to jailed defense contracting bribery convict Republican Duke Cunningham stated: “This staff has saved billions and billions of dollars, we’ve turned up malfeasance and misfeasance. It’s results justify the expense of the staff. I have no idea why the chairman would do this.†By this latest action of firing investigators into malfeasance and misfeasance against all Americans, Lewis has unequivocally, blatantly and clearly announced that the entire Republican administration is fundamentally corrupt from top to bottom. Since the Republicans have now fired the investigators, the only possible way to preserve what is left our American national integrity is to fire all Republicans in government through triple-verified citizen hand counted paper ballots. Anything less leaves our nation subject to the further whims of manifestly corrupt tyrants.
October 20th, 2006 at 3:30 pmArnold Schwarzenegger = Typical Republican Scumbag
October 20th, 2006 at 3:32 pm“Well first of all we don’t control gas prices,†Cheney responded. “There may be people out there who think we do, but we don’t.â€
The Vice President says the fall of gas prices is simple economics. He claims the world supply is now better. He also praised the current shape of the economy talking about the stock market’s record high level and low unemployment.
and this prick actually says this with a straight face KNOWING it’s a f. lie.
October 20th, 2006 at 3:35 pm#6
arnie is the son of a ss nazi officer. that should shed some light.
October 20th, 2006 at 3:36 pmrove is the grandson of a nazi who helped build auschwitz.
all of these pricks are f. nazis. and that is a fact.
welcome to the zionist owned, nazi ran, fascist america.
how does everyone like it?
if not, then next time ALL of us need to stop sitting on our hands and not do shit.
October 20th, 2006 at 3:42 pm#2, nice job cutting a pasting right out of the California voting booklet. I can cut and paste the “for 87″ argument or the “rebuttal” to your post, neither of which would add anything to this post. Sooner or later we have to decipher the political bs and think for ourselves.
My ability to think for myself has allowed me to reach the conclusion that if a company spends $25M to fight an initiative, they must have a LOT to lose. Are you disputing that or not?
October 20th, 2006 at 4:04 pmListen, don’t take this the wrong way. I am a bleeding heart liberal. However, I am also a chemist. This whole alternative fuel push is being taken waaaay too seriously by our side of the aisle. I’m with all of you; we need to change gears in terms of how we fuel the nation. However, when you talk about biodiesel and that, you have got to realize that energetic cost of making the stuff makes it JUST barely worth it. This means that switching an economy to it doesn’t make sense in the long run.
It works for Brazil, because their population is heavily urban, which we most certainly are not. We drive a whole lot more, and consume a whole lot more that requires transportation. The whole biodiesel thing is a mirage, and its something the republicans flirt with because they think it’ll score votes, and possibly provide another industry to stuff their pockets. Progressives are being bated into supporting it wholeheartedly, but the concept is a loser. We need to get serious about science in this country if we want to have a real, viable way to free ourselves from oil.
October 20th, 2006 at 4:20 pmMy ability to think for myself has allowed me to reach the conclusion that if a company spends $25M to fight an initiative, they must have a LOT to lose. Are you disputing that or not?
Comment by Mikey
Of course they are fighting it. Take any industry or service and tell them you are placing an initative on the ballot to search for a replacement to thier product and you will tax them more to fund it. You think they won’t fight it?
You know some people are lactose intolerant… maybe we should make the evil milk producers pay a fee for every gallon of milk sold to help pay for an alternative that everyone can enjoy.
If you can even wrap your mind around this you see it just another attempt to tax something that is already taxed too much.
October 20th, 2006 at 4:21 pmGovernment makes more per gallon then the oil companies and they do nothing…… They don’t operate the stations, explore, refine or transport.
For those of you here who say you are not for Big Government, how could you possibly support this?
Oil companies are so 20th century.
October 20th, 2006 at 4:32 pmWith our 21st century innovation we will make the Spawn of Standard Oil eat our dust.
Arnie has no more business in serious politics than the man in the moon. He talks a good talk; but never walks the walk. Perhaps he believes he’s playing a “role” and then shirks it off when he leaves the “set”?? There’s a major “disconnect” with this man between his public persona and his actions. In some languages, they call it a “fraud”??
October 20th, 2006 at 4:33 pmThese people will say and do anything to get what they want. They’re like a horny guy on prom night trying to woo their date. Next up – some roofies.
October 20th, 2006 at 4:35 pmAmerica’s Least Wanted
He’s given billions to alternative energy, solar energy panels, MASSIVE cuts on emissions by 2010 (or so), etc.
Why he’s against this, I don’t know. But its not like he’s done nothing.
October 20th, 2006 at 4:37 pmYou don’t need milk to get to work everyday to feed your family.
October 20th, 2006 at 4:56 pmWe need to pass Proposition 89 – the clean money and fair elections act – that is also on this fall’s ballot in California.
Right now, big oil can spend tens of millions, under Prop 89 they would be limited to $10,000.
October 20th, 2006 at 4:57 pmYou don’t need milk to get to work everyday to feed your family.
Comment by SpudgeBoy
Why don’t you just do like the North Koreans and ride your bike?
October 20th, 2006 at 5:02 pmSteve: “Government makes more per gallon then the oil companies and they do nothing…”
Waaaa, boo hoo, boo hoo, don’t tax the poor picked-on oil companies. After all, their last recorded quarterly profits were the biggest in the history of corporations. Huge corporations. Steve doesn’t want us to pick on them.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:11 pm#12, your milk analogy is silly. There is no shortage of cows, and milk isn’t driving the world economy. Millions of people don’t depend soley on milk to get themselves to work everyday. Milk and milk by-products don’t damage the environment or pollute water.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:13 pmThe reason his anology is silly is because he’s got nothing. He’s sitting there defending huge oil corporations who have just posted not just record profits for the oil industry, but record profits for the history of corporations. He’s defending an industry that attempts to manipulate the political process by manipulating oil prices. Hey Steve, we’re going to up taxes on tobacco too — why don’t you step up to the plate for that group of criminals.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:20 pm#11, you are correct. The alternative energy and biodeisal stuff is a bunch of malarky. Won’t happen. Not economical to do it.
This claim is false. The head of the American Petroleum Institute recently told Congress “big oil is powerless to control prices at the pump.â€
If the price of oil goes up, the price of gas will go up. This may come a shocker to the bloggers at this site, but the price of oil is related to the price of gasoline. If oil companies have to pay more to extract oil, they will charge more for oil to recover the cost. Pretty simple.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:23 pmWaaaa, boo hoo, boo hoo, don’t tax the poor picked-on oil companies. After all, their last recorded quarterly profits were the biggest in the history of corporations. Huge corporations. Steve doesn’t want us to pick on them.
Comment by Bluedog49
Why limit yourself to huge corporations? Why not tax all companies and pay others with that money to research how to eliminate or replace those products with new ones?
Before you blow a gasket… I’m a proponent of a flat sales tax with no exemptions. I hate property taxes and use taxes. Why should I continually to pay the goverment for something I own? Most of you have seen your communities waive or reduce taxes for companies willing to locate in your area. Who makes all the money for this game of taxes? Lawyers mostly.
If we had a flat sales tax then anytime something was purchased a revenue would be collected.
Having the goverment in our business is as bad as having them in our personal lives.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:26 pmSteve: “Why should I continually to pay the goverment for something I own?”
Because you don’t own it in a vacume. Part of the value of your home lies in the fact that it is in a good neighborhood with good roads, sewers, powerlines, etc. You also have a police and fire department ready to help you if you need it. Your home may even appreciate in value as a function of how good a community you live in.
A flat sales tax is inherently regressive, because the sales tax is much more painful to the poor than the wealthy. If, for example, you live in a wealthy suburb and commute to a large city, why should a poor person pay for your lifestyle with a chunck out of what he pays for toilet paper. You should pay your property taxes and quit whining.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:31 pmSteve: “Having the goverment in our business is as bad as having them in our personal lives. ”
Not according to the “Father of Capitalism,” Adam Smith. In “Wealth of Nations,” he makes it clear that capitalism works best for a society when that society provides some regulation. This, he points out, is because the goal of a corporation is profit, while the goal of a society is the wellbeing of its citizens. The two goals can’t always coexist. Capitalism actually works best when it is regulated.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:35 pmApparently you don’t live in California where residential housing is kept far away from the industrial areas and there is no publica transportation.
You think the average person over the age of 16 wants to ride a bike 16 miles to get to work. Yeah I could show up to work all sweaty and smelly and work in a corporate environment. I could ask the CEO to put in a bicycle rack. I could leave for work three hours early and get home three hours late everyday. Yeah right, get a grip on reality.
You are also trying to change the subject.
You tried to compare milk with gas. People don’t need milk past infancy. You need gas if you are going to be a productive member of society.
And you may like home the North Koreans are forced to live, but I am not.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:38 pm#12, your milk analogy is silly. There is no shortage of cows, and milk isn’t driving the world economy. Millions of people don’t depend soley on milk to get themselves to work everyday. Milk and milk by-products don’t damage the environment or pollute water.
Comment by Mikey
Mikey are you serious? Everyone knows that cows pollute the environment. waste run off that pollutes the water systems is just one of the problems. Another is that so much methane is is created in the production of milk and methane is a greenhouse gas which is 21% more harmful that carbon dioxide. You might what to check your facts before you so easily dismiss my anology.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:39 pmNo Steve, no analysis needed. Your analogy doesn’t hold water or milk for that matter.
You are a dumbass who thinks that your masters know what is best for you. Go lick a boot.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:42 pmMikey, I think Steve’s response should teach us two very important lessons about Steve. One, he’s not really interested in engaging in a serious argument and, two, he’s frickin insane.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:44 pmApparently you don’t live in California where residential housing is kept far away from the industrial areas and there is no publica transportation.
Comment by SpudgeBoy
You choose to work and live where you do. If you were concerned more about the environment then you were your family you would set the example and move to a small town where you could get an enviromentally safe job and commute with your feet or bike. In the mean time bitching that oil is bad is just a false cry from you because so easily use it daily.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:46 pmMikey, I think Steve’s response should teach us two very important lessons about Steve. One, he’s not really interested in engaging in a serious argument and, two, he’s frickin insane.
Comment by Bluedog49
Nice rebuttal BD. You think that up all by yourself or did you email Mikey for help?
October 20th, 2006 at 5:48 pmCows can only digest some foods after a fermentation process, called rumination. During this process, bacteria in the cow’s stomach produces methane gas. In fact, in ordinary cows, 2-12% of the energy from food is used to produce methane. And while the digestive difficulties of one burping cow may not seem like a big deal, the cumulative effects of 1.3 billion cattle producing over 100 million tons of methane annualy can have a significant effect on the world’s balance of greenhouse gases. Human-related processes, from energy production to agriculture, produce approximately 60% of the world’s methane. Ruminant animals such as cattle, buffalo, and sheep, are estimated to produce approximately a quarter of that tally, or 15% of the world’s total supply.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:50 pmSteve, I thought that up all by myself. Cute, huh? But seriously, you are obviously a Libertarian and I always ask my libertarian friends the same thing these days: They tell us we’re in a “War on Terror.” How does a libertarian fight this war? I’m serious. If you don’t believe in any regulations on corporations, how do you get them to cooperate for the general good? And, before you go to the stock libertarian answer, please remember that when Gore’s commission suggested better cockpit doors, armed air marshals and intense standards at check in, the airline industry ran to their libertarian enablers in congress and made sure there would be no regulations to insure these things happened. If any one of these things had been implemented, the 9-11 attack might not have happened.
October 20th, 2006 at 5:57 pmHey, if we could turn BS into energy. Believe it or not, someone already thought of it:
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/38497/story.htm
October 20th, 2006 at 6:10 pmWell Steve, you got me on the cow waste. This validates my assumption that you are an authority on the subject.
Mooving on…
October 20th, 2006 at 6:11 pmBluedog, I have to tell you that you are the first person on this site to call me a Libertarian :) Most call me a Right Wing (insert crude description here) or a Crazy Christian (By the way I’m Agnostic). The deal is I’m not real good with labels. In fact some of my views might be seen as liberal, conservative or libertarian. I’m a Issue by Issue kind of guy.
October 20th, 2006 at 6:16 pmI’m not against some regulation of business. I’m a U.S. Autoworker and I know the company would not follow some laws if they didn’t have too… but at the same time too much regulation… just for regulations sake is costing us our jobs. Regulations more than wages drive companies to other countries.
If you own a deli and you have a certain client base who smokes pipes, should the government force you to become no smoking? (I’m not a smoker)
I think not. If the smoke bothers other people they have the right not to go there and then if business is bad maybe it would be time to rethink your business model.
Now you asked me how do we fight this war. I say we go after terrorist(those who mean us or our allies harm)where ever they exist.
James Baker said “That if the terrorist were not in Iraq before the war they are there now” When Bush said “You are either with us or against us” I took that to heart and wanted to believe that would be how we prosecuted this threat. I see now that was talk before all the qualifiers coame to light.
Dumb sh!t, I didn’t say oil was bad. I said your analogy was stupid. Are you able to comprehend English or are you too stupid.
October 20th, 2006 at 6:20 pmBoy, what did these GOP thugs do prior to 94…go to secret retreats every month to study the art of lying? God they are so so corrupt. But they are organized in their lying “art”. It’s a craft. They must be conference calling/ coaching each other on “the art of lying effectively” on an ongoing basis. One of their techniques is to keep on the offensive, blaming your opponent for whatever he/she is blaming you of..only do it louder. This effectively cancels out- nuetralizes your opponent’s energy. It’s like it absorbs…sucks all the energy out of the “debate” becuase there are too many logical steps involved in explaning to the thug repub what he is doing. By that time the point of argument is long lost. Deception is key to their power. People that are honest are at a disadvantage iin this game.
October 20th, 2006 at 6:25 pmAre you able to comprehend English or are you too stupid.
Comment by SpudgeBoy
Yes, you are correct you never said oil was bad. I’m glad you use it freely as is your right.
Is this English? And you may like home the North Koreans are forced to live, but I am not.
Comment by SpudgeBoy
October 20th, 2006 at 6:28 pms are you responding to the correct thread?
October 20th, 2006 at 6:30 pmSteve: “Now you asked me how do we fight this war. I say we go after terrorist(those who mean us or our allies harm)where ever they exist.”
With all do respect, you’ve bought into this administration’s straw man arguments. For a fraction of what we’ve spent in Iraq, we could have put armed air marshals in every commercial airliner, reinforced cockpit doors, provided every port with high tech nuclear and biological screening devices, hired and trained thousands of Arab language translators and sent 20,000 special forces into the mountains of Tora Bora. On top of that, we’d still have the cooperation of the rest of the world. That’s the way to fight the “War on Terror.” Not Bush’s way. Bush’s way is bullshit.
October 20th, 2006 at 6:32 pmBluedog…. did you copy and paste that from another thread? I’ve had this discussion on here before :)
October 20th, 2006 at 6:38 pmHow does that keep a truck full of dirty bombs from crossing the border from Mexico?
Spend all you want but you cannot spend enough to keep us safe from a determined emeny.
The reason we haven’t been hit here yet is because so much rides on what happens in the middle east and they know that.
If they hit us here again we would be more emboldened then ever to seek them out and destroy them. They know this and are focused on making things as messy as possible for us in Iraq. Too many people do not understand what is at stake.
Rather than point out where I actually said that oil is bad, Steve becomes the spelling police. If he had a comprehension of the ENglish language he would be able to determine that the word “home” should be “how” but he can’t.
Is this English? And you may like how the North Koreans are forced to live, but I am not.
Comment by SpudgeBoy
Now Steve, show me where I said “oil is bad” You can’t, you’re a liar.
What I did say was that your analogy is stupid. And, it still is. Milk and oil are not the same and never will be.
October 20th, 2006 at 6:40 pmSteve: “Spend all you want but you cannot spend enough to keep us safe from a determined emeny.”
Is that an article of faith on your part? You either don’t believe what I posted above or you didn’t read it. I said that Gore’s commission proposed spending on certain regulations, any one of which would have possibly prevented the 9-11 attack. So, in that case, spending money might have saved us. Tell me this then: how does shoring up our defenses AT HOME instead of spending billions each month in Iraq HURT our effort to protect Americans from terrorism?
October 20th, 2006 at 6:43 pmSpudge, Take a deep breath man… I’m concerned about your blood pressure. Look at post #40. I said you were correct and that you never said oil was bad. I acknowledged that.
October 20th, 2006 at 6:43 pmSpudge, I’m sure this is not your fault… the posting of items here seems to be lagging at times.
October 20th, 2006 at 6:45 pmAnd, Steve. I didn’t cut and paste anything. You remember that discussion because this is the second time I’ve brought it up here. Iraq is a waste of blood and treasure. As a retired General just said last week, it will go down in history as our worst foreign policy blunder. It’s way, way past time for all Bush cultists to just give up the ghost on this one. It’s over. The jury’s in. It’s been a horrible mistake and Bush and his people are completely responsible for it. They should be held to account.
October 20th, 2006 at 6:45 pmBlueDog what I’m saying is that a determined enemy can hit us at will. While certain security steps make sense the enemy soon learns where the holes are. They take dry runs and plan over time. As the security changes so do thier plans. The steps the Gore commision may have stopped the attacks as they were but if it wasn’t that it would have been something else. You have to understand our enemy and thier goals to see what they are capable of.
October 20th, 2006 at 6:49 pmOkay Steve. And yes, this posting lag sucks. Makes it hard to deabte anything. The problem was fixed and now it is back. Frustarting as hell.
Don’t worry about my blood pressure. I just had it checked and was told by the doctor that it was “text book normal”. I think that people that have high blood pressure are the people that hold stuff in and don’t speak their minds the way they want. I don’t have that problem.
October 20th, 2006 at 6:52 pmIt’s over. The jury’s in. It’s been a horrible mistake and Bush and his people are completely responsible for it. They should be held to account.
Comment by Bluedog49
Then What? Come home and put up the wall? What about our allies? What about the other countries of the world being overtaken by the muslim extremist? We should just wait till they gather at our shores? I’m not going to be able to respond because I have to go for a few hours.
October 20th, 2006 at 6:53 pm“Spend all you want but you cannot spend enough to keep us safe from a determined emeny.”
Wow, that’s a quote right out of the Bush admin’s greatest hits. But how does that statement help your argument? Couldn’t I say the same thing about the war spending? Or do you think the war in Iraq is free? BD’s point is that the same money could have been spent wisely with better results.
And by the way, how does killing terrorists in Iraq keep a truckload of dirty bombs from crossing the Mexican border?
October 20th, 2006 at 6:56 pmSteve: “What about the other countries of the world being overtaken by the muslim extremist?”
I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, Steve, but the other countries of the world aren’t exactly clammoring to have us come to their countries and help them out. They’d actually like us to stay out of their business. What they want is for our respective law enforcement communities to communicate and cooperate.
October 20th, 2006 at 7:05 pmMy boss just told me to hold tight, so I might not have to leave just yet.
October 20th, 2006 at 7:14 pmRegardless of how the money could have been spent the truth is we are here now in the present. I’m not as interested in what we should have done as I am in what should we do now. Mikey killing terrorists in Iraq has nothing to do with bombs coming across the border. My point is that from a stategic point our emeny has nothing really to gain and everything to lose by striking us again in our country. Thier Focus is on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Tell that to Bush.
October 20th, 2006 at 7:16 pmSteve, according to Bush’s own NIE, which he didn’t like and tried to keep quiet, the war in Iraq creates more terrorists every day. In other words, it doesn’t help win the war on terror, it exaserbates it.
October 20th, 2006 at 7:34 pm“Mikey killing terrorists in Iraq has nothing to do with bombs coming across the border.”
OK, I follow that and agree.
“My point is that from a stategic point our emeny has nothing really to gain and everything to lose by striking us again in our country”
About the only truth and sense Bush ever uttered is that the enemy has no face. (I think that’s a quote). We could kill every living thing in Iraq and Afganistan and there would still be plenty of people with the desire and means to attack the U.S. or allies. Muslim extremists exist in more countries than just the middle east.
October 20th, 2006 at 7:39 pmCome home and put up the wall?
Comment by Steve — October 20, 2006 @ 6:53 pm
That is already happening, so no need to fret about it anymore.
What about our allies? What about the other countries of the world being overtaken by the muslim extremist?
Yeah, what about our allies? And what are all those countries “being overtaken” by Muslim extremists? Sounds a little apocalyptic to me.
We should just wait till they gather at our shores?
More apocalyptic visions here. The same thing was said about the “Red Danger”. And how exactly would Muslims extremists “gather at our shores”?
October 20th, 2006 at 7:56 pmVOTE NO on Prop.87
The $0.51 per gal. corporate welfare to the oil refiners for adding 5.6% 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
(510) 537-1796
Clean Air Performance Professionals
CAPP contact: Charlie Peters (510) 537-1796 cappcharlie@earthlink.net
October 20th, 2006 at 10:15 pmCharlie,
If Prop. 87 will be such a money tree for the oil business, how come they’re spending millions to fight it?
Anything the corporate clowns in this country oppose, I’m all for. They have no ethics and no responsibility. We should be demanding more governement regulation of irresponsible corporations. They run the world as it is.
October 20th, 2006 at 10:25 pmIf taxes are raised on the oil companys, and you believe that it wont be passed on to the consumer, regardless of what the prop says, then i’ve got some land in Florida I’d like to sell you……….
October 21st, 2006 at 9:05 amProposition 87 is a great idea, and will work just fine to promoTe alternative energy. The cncept however, is a more difficult solution than it needs to be, but it should be approved by the voters,It will work juat fine!! IF PROPOSITION 87 FAILS RAISE THE STATE GAS TAX AND DEDICATE THE FUNDS FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY NEEDS TO BE PROMOTED FOR A SECURE ENERGY FUTURE!!!!
October 21st, 2006 at 9:28 amWant your mind blown away ? I mean REALLY blown away at just how corrupt our government local and national and companies and big oil really are ? Alternative fuel already exists. It was hear nearly 10 years ago. IT worked. it was SUCCESSFUL (too successful) and it was economically cheaper than gas cars !! its called the Electric Car. not the waste of money hybrid (my damned 30 year old merceded diesel gets better mpg than many hybrids) but PURE electric plug in to recharge it electric cars. Ready to have your mind blown away ? ready to blow your top with anger ? search for Who Killed the Electric Car and “torrent” or wait till november when it comes out on DVD. MIND BLOWING !!
October 21st, 2006 at 10:30 amDavid, Why does goverment have to be involved? If alternative fuel is going to be the next best thing since sliced bread, then why isn’t the market driving this? Why aren’t investors lining up in droves to get in on the next big thing?
October 21st, 2006 at 10:40 amDon’t get me wrong. I like the idea of alternative fuel and I think the most promising right now is the liquidifacation of coal. It seems to me everything the government get involved with turns into crap and I need less politicians involved in my life not more.
Because the government is in bed with Big Oil. The sooner that we force them to do something about their best buddies, the better. And no, I didn’t just say oil was bad. I said Big Oil was bad. There is a difference.
October 21st, 2006 at 12:13 pmLOL
October 21st, 2006 at 12:39 pmHow do you plan to force them to do something? This ballot initiative? They will just ignore it like they have so many before.
Because the government is in bed with Big Oil. The sooner that we force them to do something about their best buddies, the better.
You can do something by investing your own money into these groups that are researching and developing alternatives. Why wait for the government to do anything? The problem is most investors want some kind of return for thier investment…. if it was promising enough the money would be pouring into these groups. Because its not, means the people with money to invest are not sure alternatives are going to be viable.
October 21st, 2006 at 12:48 pmBesides we both know that as soon as alternatives do become viable and start replacing oil based fuels that they will be taxed the same as oil is now. Because the government makes more per gallon then does the oil companies, they are not interested in seeing that income go away.
OK, Steve, what’s your suggestion? Sit on our hands and do nothing? That’s working SOOOOO well now, isn’t it? Wait a minute, were you on Cheney’s secret energy task force?
Big oil will do nothing for this problem. Government can funnel some money into research and something will be accomplished. I’d prefer something to nothing. We’ll pay more for gas no matter what.
I’m tired of the “why should government be involved” crap, and it is a load of crap. Government is responsive to the people, unlike corporate America (and corporate world). It is the only way some problems will be solved. And it really pisses off the right (an added benefit).
October 21st, 2006 at 1:36 pmAll dogs go to heaven and all oil company exectuives burn in hell.
If you need less politicians in your life then try to get them uninvolved where they should be, like not trying to ban privately funded stem cell research, and promoting official prayer time in public schools; don’t wish for them to protect us less than they should(but don’t because they – wall street republicans who hold half of the real power under the bush administration – can make lots of money with this kind of war on the less wealthy 90%, then when we’re all eating each other they’ll be able to afford to live in gated communities.)
Keep the government out of it is a perfect recipe for the kind of capitalism we had during the industrial revolution, you know when children worked 70 hour weeks and coal companies hired armies of mercenaries to murder striking workers and their families in the thousands.
Let’s also not forget that these ads run on public airwaves. I would much rather my children be exposed to the occasional african american booby than this kind of shit.
October 21st, 2006 at 5:18 pm[...] read more | digg story [...]
October 22nd, 2006 at 2:06 amTop Schwarzenegger aide, lawmakers travel to South America
KESQ News Channel 3, (AP), Saturday, November 11, 2006
SACRAMENTO Governor Schwarzenegger’s chief of staff and a bipartisan delegation of state lawmakers have left on a 12-day trip to South America to study alternative-energy technologies.
Chief of Staff Susan Kennedy, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and high-ranking members of both the Senate and Assembly are being accompanied by representatives of energy companies and others with lobbying interests in Sacramento.
The trip will take the delegation to Argentina, Brazil and Chile.
Officials say the mission is designed to give lawmakers a lesson in ethanol production and other clean-energy technologies.
The trip was organized and funded by the California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy.
On the Net:
California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy, http://www.cfee.net/
Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=5665181&nav=9qrx
November 12th, 2006 at 5:18 pmMr. Prop.87?
Ralph Cavanagh
3rd Annual Heinz Award Recipient
Ralph Cavanagh receives the Heinz Award in Public Policy for his work in persuading legislators and regulators to permit utilities to earn money by saving energy.
Mr. Cavanagh, co-director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Energy Program, epitomizes the power of the thinker, the convener, and the listener. An optimist by nature who believes that win-win situations are possible with enough hard work, Mr. Cavanagh has been a leader in implementing the notion that environmental solutions should contribute to the bottom line of polluting businesses which traditional regulations prevented. His unparalleled success in persuading regulators of the merits of this once unorthodox view helped to prove that utility regulatory reform is viable and yields substantial environmental gains. He has used public policy in an exemplary way to bring about positive, widespread changes in existing regulations and practices.
A graduate of Yale University Law School, Ralph Cavanagh possesses impressive credentials. In addition to his duties at the National Resources Defense Council, he is a past member of the Energy Engineering Board of the National Academy of Sciences, and a visiting professor at both Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley. But it is in the Byzantine trenches of utility policy reform that he has built his considerable reputation.
Beginning in 1979, Mr. Cavanagh focused his efforts on the electric utility sector, then accounting for as much as two-thirds of the nation’s principal air pollutants. His goal was to improve the alignment of shareholder and societal interests, so that utility profits were no longer primarily linked to promoting increased electricity use. First in the Pacific Northwest and later in California, he helped build coalitions of utilities, consumer groups, industries, regulators, and others to unleash the power of energy efficiency and renewable energy resources. Northwest utilities with which Mr. Cavanagh worked have reduced electricity needs since 1980 by the equivalent of a Seattle-sized city, while eliminating divisive conflicts over new coal-fired and nuclear plants that all parties concede are no longer needed.
In California, Mr. Cavanagh helped organize the “California Collaborative,” a set of structured negotiations among a host of traditionally opposing interests throughout the state. Since 1990, that initiative has yielded utility-financed energy efficiency improvements large enough to significantly reduce pollution and cut Californians’ energy bills by more than two billion dollars. More recently, in 1996, he shared credit for the nation’s most ambitious multi-state energy conservation partnership, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Additionally, both in the Pacific Northwest and California, Cavanagh has worked to guarantee that low-income citizens share equally in the benefits of sustainable energy investment.
Mr. Cavanagh is the first to admit that he did not invent the idea of aligning utility shareholder and societal interests, but he is the man who proved it could be implemented on a large scale. As is so often the case, the true mark of leadership was Mr. Cavanagh’s ability to understand the concerns of all parties, and to then build a solution each party felt met its essential needs. That brand of leadership is rare, but Ralph Cavanagh, through an inspired mixture of brilliance, insight and perseverance, exhibited it in achieving one of the most sweeping regulatory turnarounds of recent times.
Note: This profile is excerpted from the commemorative brochure published at the time of the awards’ presentation.
Web site: http://www.nrdc.org/media/expert.asp
UPDATES SINCE RECEIVING THE HEINZ AWARD
May 2004 – Cavanagh receives the Lifetime Achievement in Energy Efficiency Award from California’s Flex Your Power campaign. The award recognized his demonstrated exceptional leadership and extraordinary contributions to advance energy efficiency in California. – Flex Your Power website (www.fypower.org)
August 2001 – Cavanagh is named to the board of directors of Electric Power Research Institute’s new Electricity Innovation Institute. The new institute will focus on “electrical infrastructure for a digital society†among other things, and will field a board of directors of well-known public officials – Energy Daily
December 2000 – Cavanagh’s panel on nuclear waste disposal releases its final report. In it, the committee concludes that there are indeed methods of destroying nuclear waste that are less likely to compromise human and environmental health – The Associated Press
May 2000 – Cavanagh is selected to chair a blue-ribbon panel appointed by Energy Secretary Bill Richardson. The purpose of the panel, which was created by the U.S. Department of Energy, is to research the methods of disposing of radioactive waste and hopefully find alternative solutions – New Technology Week
http://www.heinzawards.net/recipients.asp?action=detail&recipientID=38#
November 12th, 2006 at 5:20 pmThe Prop.87/AB32 team is in S. America?
Category
Participants List
Confirmed
STATE GOVERNMENT – ADMINISTRATION
Linda S. Adams, Secretary for Environmental Protection, Cal/EPA
Mike Chrisman, Secretary, Resources Agency
Susan P. Kennedy, Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor
Brian C. Prusnek, Deputy Cabinet Secretary, Energy and Resources, Office of the Governor
Dan Skopec, Undersecretary, California Environmental Protection Agency
Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer, Air Resources Board
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
Jackalyne Pfannenstiel, Vice Chair
CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE
Don Perata, President pro Tempore
Sam Aanestad
Wes Chesbro
Dave Cox
Christine Kehoe
Sheila James Kuehl
Alan Lowenthal
Mike Machado
Bob Margett
George C. Runner, Jr.
Joe Simitian
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY
Fabian Nunez, Speaker of the Assembly
Bill Emmerson
Loni Hancock
John Laird
Lloyd E. Levine
Ted W. Lieu
Nicole Parra
Fran Pavley
Sharon Runner
Alberto Torrico
WESTERN STATES
Sarah Cottrell, Energy and Environment Advisor, State of New Mexico
Steve Ellenbecker, Energy Policy Advisor, Governor Freudenthal, Wyoming
Lori Faeth, Policy Advisor, Natural Resources & Environment, Office of the Governor, Arizona
Rich Halvey, Project Manager – Air Quality, Mexico, Western Governors’ Association
Ned Farquhar, Chief Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor, Montana
Pam Inmann, Executive Director, Western Governors’ Association
Laura S. Nelson, Energy Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor, Utah
BUSINESS/INDUSTRY
Paul J. Allen, Senior Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Constellation Energy Group
Beth A. Bowman, Senior Vice President, Shell Trading Gas & Power
John J. Coffey, General Manager, U.S. State & Local Relations, Chevron Corporation
Scott Farris, Director, Government Relations, TransCanada Corporation
Thomas E. Giles, President & CEO, Sound Energy Solutions
Randy Hickok, Vice President of California Assets, Duke Energy North America
Steve Hoffmann, President, Western Region, NRG Energy, Inc.
Frederick E. John, Energy Consultant
William Keese, Energy Consultant
Renee Klimczak, President, BHP Billiton LNG International, Inc.
Robert L. Mitchell, Managing Director, Trans-Elect, Inc.
Peter C. Montgomery, Director, California Government Affairs, BP America, Inc.
Stephanie Newell, Vice President, State Affairs, Reliant Energy
Billy Owens, Vice President West Coast Development, NorthernStar Natural Gas / Clearwater Port
Dan Richard, Consultant
J. Timothy Romer, Managing Director, Municipal Finance Dept., Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Joseph E. Ronan, Senior Vice President, Govt. & Regulatory Affairs, Calpine Corporation
Jeff Russell, President, Mirant California, LLC
Jan Smutny-Jones, Executive Director, Independent Energy Producers Association
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES
Bill D. Carnahan, Executive Director, Southern California Public Power Authority
Ronald Deaton, General Manager, Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
Gerald Jordan, Executive Director, California Municipal Utilities Association
James H. Pope, General Manager, Northern California Power Agency
UTILITIES
Thomas E. Bottorff, Senior V.P., Customer Service & Revenue, Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Alan J. Fohrer, Chief Executive Officer, Southern California Edison Company
Thomas S. Sayles, Vice President, Governmental & Community Affairs, Sempra Energy
ENVIRONMENTAL
Sheryl Carter, Director, Western Energy Programs, Natural Resources Defense Council
Thomas Graff, Regional Director, Environmental Defense
Stephen P. Johnson, Director of Strategic Initiatives, The Nature Conservancy
Jason Mark, Program Director, Union of Concerned Scientists
Diane Wittenberg, President, California Climate Action Registry
LABOR
Robert L. Balgenorth, President, State Building & Construc. Trades Council
Timothy T. Cremins, Director of Educ. & Research, Calif.-Nev. Conf. of Operating Engineers
Daniel M. Curtin, Director, California Conference of Carpenters
Brian D’Arcy, Business Manager/Financial Secretary, I.B.E.W. Local Union 18
Thomas M. Dalzell, Business Manager/Financial Secretary, I.B.E.W. Local Union 1245, AFL-CIO
Jose Mejia, Director, Laborers State Council – Legislative Dept.
CALIFORNIA FOUNDATION ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
Patrick Johnston, Chair
Patrick F. Mason, President
*
TBA, C.C.E.E.B.
Beth E. Vaughan, Consultant
*
Celeste Cremen, Conference Coordinator
*
OBSERVERS
Kip Lipper, Consultant, Policy Unit, Office of the Senate pro Tempore
Mary Lynch, Vice President, Regulatory & Legis. Affairs, Constellation Energy Commodities Group
Nancy E. Ryan, Energy Advisor to President Peevey
CFEE
CALIFORNIA FOUNDATION ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
Conference on Implementation of AB32 – The California Greenhouse Gas Initiative
November 12th, 2006 at 5:24 pmCA DCA/BAR Smog Check does not find if the fail fault is repaired.
A Quality audit can cut 50% of car impact in a year (2007)
Charlie Peters
January 1st, 2007 at 9:01 pm(510) 537-1796
Clean Air Performance Professionals