 |
|
|
|
September 21, 2006 12:42 AM
Green Tech Vs. The Empire: In California, A Proposition to Tax Big Oil is Popular. But Is It Popular Enough? by William Bradley Oil companies are unpopular, alternative fuels are well thought of, there is major concern about climate change, and there is an initiative on California’s November ballot that addresses all those concerns. It’s ahead in the polls. Yet its fate remains very uncertain. It is called Proposition 87. A spectacular initiative campaign surrounding Proposition 87 is now underway in California. This campaign would raise some $400 million a year for alternative fuels development through a tax on oil at the wellhead. With support in the polls over 60 percent last June, TV ads begun running around California attacking the big oil companies for their record profits and demanding that they “pay their fair share.” California is the only oil producing state without a significant oil severance tax. Proposition 87 was a very popular proposal. But the empire struck back. The anti-oil tax initiative has already spent over $10 million so far on TV ads. The first features an attractive soccer mom type filling up her SUV at the gas station, talking about “a $4 billion oil tax” to fund an “unaccountable bureaucracy.” The ad clearly implies, but does not state, that the tax at the wellhead to fund alternative energy R&D, Proposition 87, would raise gas prices. It’s a tricky situation for the campaign to flat out state what it is implying, because the campaign is funded by the oil companies and the proposed law specifically prohibits the oil extraction tax being passed on to consumers. For the industry to state that the tax will be passed on could constitute prima facie evidence of its intent to break the proposed law. Now a new flight of ads gets around that problem by saying the tax will lead to more importing of expensive foreign oil, due to lower production in the state on account of the new tax at the wellhead. To counter this, the forces behind Proposition 87 launched a new TV ad campaign around the state saying it is time for the oil industry to pay its fair share. But then the campaign seemed to languish as the “NO!” argument built up a head of steam. Chevron Oil and Aera Energy, a joint venture of Shell Oil and Exxon Mobil Oil, each contributed over $10 million to the campaign to defeat Prop 87 when it seemed to have all the momentum in the world last June. They and other oil companies continue to pour funds into the campaign. Which is not to say that the pro-oil tax side is completely without resources. Hollywood producer Steve Bing, who has given millions to Democratic causes — including the building of Democratic national headquarters in Washington and the defeat of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s special election agenda last year — kicked things off. Bing is perhaps best known as the father of model/movie star Liz Hurley’s child. He was joined by Sun Microsystems co-founder Vinod Khosla, now a major Silicon Valley venture capitalist. Each gave over a million dollars to get the ball rolling. Silicon Valley’s John Doerr, another Democratic donor who is perhaps the most prominent venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, and Google co-founder Larry Page are also seven-figure backers. “Green tech” business interests, such those backing the landmark anti-global warming bill worked out by moderate Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic legislative leaders, have a stake in the success of the measure as well. If it succeeds it would pump some $4 billion into the development of alternative fuels. So the “YES!” side will have the resources to gets its message out. But, even with popular concern about the oil companies and their record profits, the atmosphere in California this November may be wrong. This is the post-Proposition 82 Reiner initiative environment, in which voters are more skeptical about seemingly good ideas that cost money. Not only did controversial movie director Rob Reiner’s tax-the-rich-for-universal-preschool initiative go down in a June primary election dominated by a Democratic gubernatorial primary contest, so too did a non-controversial bond measure for public libraries, which had no organized opposition. Schwarzenegger, who says he supports the goals of the oil tax initiative but opposes the tax, has been pounding his Democratic challenger, liberal state Treasurer Phil Angelides, for his expansive but still rather vague program of tax increases. Polling shows the attacks have worked. No matter its worthy goals, the oil tax initiative may just go down in California in the same way the preschool initiative did in June. Bill Bradley, of New West Notes, is a third generation Californian, award-winning columnist and political analyst, and former advisor and operative in dozens of Democratic campaigns ranging from the city council to the White House. An exclusive article from Pajamas Media, the Best of the Blogs, and POLITICSCENTRAL. ——— Comments (9)ajacksonian :Ken Hahn :The proposition is the usual demogoguery of tax the oil companies with an admixture of spending that is guaranteed to produce nothing exept rich academics and corruption on a massive scale. Like the idiotic stem cell research boondoggle, there is a vast ammount of money and a total lack of control. All in all, prop 87 is wellfare for the greenie crowd. maxh :If alternative fuels are a viable product then venture capitalists will provide the money needed to start the ball rolling. If they aren't then why would we spend billions on an unproductive technology? Either way this tax has all the marks of a "gimme" to the green crowd. If bio-fuels are a viable market government, money won't be needed. If they aren't, then all the government money in the world won't help them and will just feed the corruption that follows every government project. We'll end up not only with higher fuel prices but also higher prices for any product using petroleum and there are many. The most likely scenario is a broken bio-fuels industry as dependant on govenment largesse as most alternate energy generators and about as profitable. If this thing were such a good and profitable idea, then why aren't these so-called democrat venture capitalists spending their own money on it instead of dumping it into a campaign to force other people to foot the bill. Maybe they know something we don't? Patrick S Lasswell :Deliverables. Accountability. And what exactly have alternative fuel advocates been doing for the last thirty years? If there was a more profitable greener fuel source our there, corporations would be producing it. Even if it was a slim magin, the press value would be worth it. Thank God that our oil based economy is so strong that we can sustain this kind of useless politics and still grow our GNP. Andrew Robertson :Putting the "green" argument aside for a moment, looking to bio-fuels for a short term "stopgap" while we attempt to develop more modern energy technology is not such a bad way to go. It seems to me, that the less money we can put in the pockets of Islamic countries, and, thus, their terrorist spawn, the better for us as a FREE society. True, it is an absolute fact that it cannot happen RIGHT NOW as the Green side and some others would have it, but all it takes is a little effort on the consumers' part & it will happen. On that account, it is becoming easier for consumers to make a choice regarding non-petroleum based energy. Most of GM & Ford's fleet of new product is bio-capable. Furthermore, there are many diesel vehicles available in which bio-diesel is perfectly viable. And, in my understanding, many planned for release in the '08 model year. (There will be very few, if any, for the '07 M.Y. due to EPA rules chaging the fomulation of currently available diesel to an Ultra Low Sulfur content (ULSD).) Personally, I have made the switch. I just purchased a used diesel vehicle. I'm running unmixed bio-diesel. Yes, it is a pain in the neck to get fuel right now as there is only one pump in Phoenix that sells it, however, that will change in time. And, you are absolutely correct in the re-tort that I am only one person & most people won't go to the trouble that I am. My response is: The more people like me, that do go to the trouble, will be the foundation of a viable consumer base for companies to more widely and profitably distribute bio-fuel products (Wal-Mart just announced plans to do so.) It'll be a gradual process--just like the transition to high-speed internet...it's been available for 11 years, but only in the last 2 or 3 years has it become a "necessity" for the average user. Over the next 10 or so years, I would not be surprised to see consumers adopting bio-fuels for their personal energy needs--only because it's the most immediatly availble alternative to petrol. Some will make the choice "for the environment", others for the same reason I did, while still others will switch unwittingly when bio-fuel penetration is heavy. Regarding the CA proposition--it's a money/power-grab, in the same pattern as every other initiative from the left. It serves to make the left leaning masses feel better while further empowering the leftist elite--all in the name of the perpetually terminally-ill environment. My reasons for going bio are not theirs, however, whatever path that leads to the extraction of the country from our current energy dependency, in my opinion, is an acceptable one. If we get a cleaner place to live in the process, so much the better. I'm confident the fickle consumer will, maybe unwittingly, make the same choice. j.pickens :Hey Andrew, It takes the equivalent energy of about one gallon of diesel fuel to make that methanol, make the NaOH, heat the mix, and filter and separate it. You are WASTING energy and producing TWICE the CO2 emissions by burning your pseudoenvironmental waste of time, biodiesel. Idiot... Andrew Robertson :Hey, "J". A bit rabid aren't we? I'm not really F'N concerned about the environment as I said in my post. In regards to your post, did you ever notice there are other ways to create energy than petrol? HMM? There's Hydro, nuclear, wind, & (egad) solar just for a start. Any of these can be used to create electricity which in turn can be used to accomplish the necessary tasks to create bio-fuel. I suppose you'll pitch a fit when we start developing a Hydrogen based economy as well? It'll be too expensive to create it. It'll waste more energy than it creates...blah blah. Meanwhile, during that process hopefully we'll be able to develop zero-point engergy...none of us will be alive by then but it's gonna happen. I suspect there will be those like you during that process as well--too expensive, too whatever...OY! My whole point is that, IMMEDIATELY, we should be doing anything & EVERYTHING to cut off the supply of money being used to radicalize the muslim world, and, further, develop ways to try to kill those who do not agree with them, i.e. US! Not to mention Chavez, Russia, China, & Cuba--Others who are using our energy dependency against us. Have a good one. Kandy Kid :Thesea are all great arguments for CO2-free, NOx-free nuclear energy. It is a well-tested technology that is delivering results not only here in the USA, but around the world. If the hand-wringing enviromentalists would give up the old, tired fight about long-term storage, we would have a great solution. So liberals, why is it we can look to France for health care solutions, but not for energy solutions?? j.pickens :Andrew, Comments have been archived for this page. |
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
RSS FeedsPajamas MediaThe Smart Veep Pick for Obama Obama’s Punitive Liberalism Will Rank-and-File Democrats Vote for Obama? FBI Reportedly Investigating Ehud Olmert Democratic Party Crashers Target Denver Obama the Divider Political Speech Not as Free as You Think The ‘Cone of Silence’ Non-Story
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
|
digg this
del.icio.us
The loveliness of 'Green' fuels, the looking upon them as 'renewable', the sweet idea that they are low impact and can be done quickly and easily. Each of those is, however, not the case.
As Popular Mechanics looked at some of the basics, I went just a bit further to analyze each of the 'Green' alternative fuels and proposals here. And while many tout 'this plant' for ethanol or 'that plant' for biodiesel, very few of those individuals ever look at what is necessary to move the Nation to such things. There is a heavy conversion system necessary for all plant based fuels and the actual construction of that industry is not factored into the equations of their greenness. Nor do any of the individuals pushing these agendas look at the base energy conversion capability per time period for their solution spaces. Quickly put, the US does not have enough land to go 'Green' and still feed itself. Brazil is able to try to go 'Green' by doing something very un-green: which is chop down Amazonian rainforest at an alarming rate to get short term agricultural land that is soon wasted, and in a few years after that even unfit for cattle and is washing away into the Amazonian delta and the Atlantic Ocean. Per acre the net Brazilian conversion of biomass to ethanol is 6.3%, energy-wise. For every 100 KWh of energy in 6.3 KWh of energyis returned in the processed form of ethanol. The entire output of Brazil is 4 Billion gallons of ethanol, which sounds like a lot, but is a drop in the bucket to the 125 Billion gallons of gasoline the US consumes per year. Where we will get 30 extra Brazils is beyond me.
The biodiesel folks look at the lovely fact that you can run cars on vegetable oil and see that as the 'future'. Well, first the entire autofleet of the Nation needs to be replaced, then that 125 Billion gallons needs to be produced, plus the extra few billions of gallons of actual diesel being used every year. Tropical plants, such as the palm plant do a lovely job and get you 9.45% efficiency of sunlight to fuel, and diesel is almost exactly the same for energy output as gasoline, so big wins. The major losses are that while jatropha and mustard seed can be used to make diesel in seasonal climates, you only get seasonal production and lower percentage conversion rates. Have a bad season and production drops. Rapeseed oil is the best at 9.58% conversion ratio, but it has the same limitations on seasonality in the temperate climates. But then there are some folks who point to the fact that a cubic acre of algae will produce lots of diesel, surely that is a way to go? But taking the vast amount of seawater necessary to process out algae will have a deleterious impact to sealife as algae lives only where the sun shines: the first 10' or so of ocean water. To get the necessary cubic acres of seawater the US would have to build fleets of ships to troll the waters and skim the algae out on an industrial scale. The concept of 'by catch' and removing the bottom of the oceanic chain of life come to mind here. Especially as the seasonal oceans see the largest algal blooms and the highest potential for harvesting, they are also the basis of the richest and most diverse sea life communities on the planet. Put quarter-acre tanks on land would instantly require 1% of all land in the US, even before support and maintenance systems are added to that. Any natural 'farming' that is shallower using surface techniques requires more land as the depth of water drops, and in direct proportion.
If we must make a new industrial infrastructure for energy I propose a long term energy independence policy that is space-based and a stop gap energy policy to bridge the next 30 years or so. Let us go where energy is cheap, construction is minimal and the investment will pay off with more jobs and a brighter future for the Nation. Invest in the 21st century of technology, not the 19th or 20th.
Sep 21, 2006 03:51 AM