The money is lining up against Prop 87 in California.
Prop 87 is a ballot initiative that would impose a small fee on oil drilling in the state. The fee is indexed to the price of oil, making it essentially a tax on oil company profits. Those wells that went in when oil was $25 a barrel? They still cost the same to run. If they were profitable then, they are goldmines now.
Over 10 years, Prop 87 will raise $4 billion. The money will go toward kicking our oil addiction.
But $4 billion in profits is $4 billion in profits, and no matter that this measure will fight global warming while developing energy independence -- oil companies will spend what it takes, up to $3.99999999 billion, to make Californians think otherwise.
Here's the spin: Won't this tax raise gasoline prices? Aren't prices high enough without new taxes?
The price of crude oil is set on a world market. A tax like this will have zippo effect on world crude prices. Alaska's oil drilling fee is 15%, Lousiana's is 12.5%, and Texas's is 4.6%. What do these three states have in common? Gas prices waaay cheaper than California.
Ain't no better way to keep gas prices high than to not develop alternatives.
California is the third-largest oil producing state in the country. Yet the state garners more revenue from selling hunting and fishing licenses than it gets from drilling fees -- and this an industry with $78.3 billion in profits last year alone.
The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that this is not a ballot initiative -- it's an intelligence test.
Comments
View as Flat
odograph Posted 11:34 pm
18 Aug 2006
But is 87 a good general bill to do that, or does it too closely target specific (lobby loved) technologies?
I'll look into it more later, but that's my concern.
FWIW, some alternative reading material:
California's Proposition 87
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:10 am
19 Aug 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
jsalera Posted 12:09 am
21 Aug 2006
How do you know here will the money really go? This prop was put on the ballot by venture capitalists vinod khosla and his associates at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. They are also involved in biofuel ventures that may reap billions if this is passed.
Who will control this money? who will decide what projects get funded. will projects destined to fail get funded anyway?
What happen if venture capitalists in all 50 states pass innitiatives like this that they can benefit from? will we have 50 separate tax policies?
I'm a big proponent of taxing gas too. but not this way. The earth policy institute has a good model for gas taxes that reduces income taxes to to take the regressive sting out of it. A much more workable solution.
The california legislature will not control this money. californians would be better served if their legislature passed a tax and their governor signed it. Even if they have to wait for better plitical circumstances. They would then have accountability for the money.
"The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that this is not a ballot initiative -- it's an intelligence test."
if it's an intelligence test then your readers need info to make an intelligent decision. You left a heck of a lot out here. In taxes the devil is in the details
Permalink
jsalera Posted 12:22 am
21 Aug 2006
people across the globe have fought for years to keep gm crops out of the fields. it would be a tragedy to let them in the backdoor through biofuels.
Has anybody asked the bacers of prop 87 about their views on gm crops? Where is Vinod Khosla going to get the corn, or whatever else he will use, to make all that ethanol.
gm crops (frankenweeds) are not clean or green. What kind of enviromentalism is promoted here.
Permalink