I think it would be good to articulate some clear and attractive alternative proposals to prop 87. At the very least it would be good to get some public policy discussion of conservation-based energy policy going.
In my opinion, this could have been sold by just proposing a modest gas tax increase, with the proceeds being directed to alternative energy and rebates for fuel efficient vehicles. I think the public would have bought into this. I don't even think the oil companies would have opposed this, and over a hundred million dollars would not have been spent in this mud-slinging contest.
What we see now is that support is slipping, because many economists have come out and suggested that this will indeed raise gas prices. But the amount is uncertain. It depends on many factors. I think this uncertainty is discomforting to many people, who might have had a much easier time supporting a nickel a gallon tax increase.
Part of the beaut of taxing oil extraction is that California's neighbors have to foot part of the bill. If California just increases at-the-pump taxes, then only California suffers. Prop 87 at least has the California benefit of syphoning money from our neighbors to pump up our own economy.
California produces about 730,000 barrels of oil per day, while in 2002 it consumed 980,000 bbl/day of gasoline alone. As any restriction on California oil production is going to have some small upward influence on the world price of oil, California's net position as an importer means some cash is going to flow out of California as a result of Proposition 87. The only benefit is part of the zero-sum game of money being collected by the state instead of going to shareholders. (A motor fuel tax would depress demand and tend to lower world prices slightly, leading to less cash leaving California due to fewer and cheaper imports.)
I hadn't realized that until I looked at the production and consumption numbers. It looks like Khosla & Co. are wrong, and T. Boone Pickens and the other folks who favor stiff fuel taxes are right.
It will be interesting to see how Californians vote on this. We'll know soon enough!
I do think that a definite tax is smart. A definite amount on gas, for example. Also it would help to direct the dollars to various efforts to bring about change.
Money directed to transit, fuel-efficient vehicle rebate programs, and perhaps some research might be a better strategy than just subsidizing one silver bullet very heavily.
Prop 87 right now looks very much like one special-interest group demanding more subsidy for themselves while also demanding that "Big Oil" foot the bill.
"Big Oil" is my primary pusher, and as an oil addict I have a strong love/hate relationship with this industry. But I do not want to "meet the new pusher, same as the old pusher" in "Big Ethanol."
That's where Prop 87 is weakest, in my estimation.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
-->
“Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians.”
k Nation (Jim Kunstler)
GAIA Host Collective
In my opinion, this could have been sold by just proposing a modest gas tax increase, with the proceeds being directed to alternative energy and rebates for fuel efficient vehicles. I think the public would have bought into this. I don't even think the oil companies would have opposed this, and over a hundred million dollars would not have been spent in this mud-slinging contest.
What we see now is that support is slipping, because many economists have come out and suggested that this will indeed raise gas prices. But the amount is uncertain. It depends on many factors. I think this uncertainty is discomforting to many people, who might have had a much easier time supporting a nickel a gallon tax increase.
I hadn't realized that until I looked at the production and consumption numbers. It looks like Khosla & Co. are wrong, and T. Boone Pickens and the other folks who favor stiff fuel taxes are right.
It will be interesting to see how Californians vote on this. We'll know soon enough!
I do think that a definite tax is smart. A definite amount on gas, for example. Also it would help to direct the dollars to various efforts to bring about change.
Money directed to transit, fuel-efficient vehicle rebate programs, and perhaps some research might be a better strategy than just subsidizing one silver bullet very heavily.
Prop 87 right now looks very much like one special-interest group demanding more subsidy for themselves while also demanding that "Big Oil" foot the bill.
"Big Oil" is my primary pusher, and as an oil addict I have a strong love/hate relationship with this industry. But I do not want to "meet the new pusher, same as the old pusher" in "Big Ethanol."
That's where Prop 87 is weakest, in my estimation.