Slashdot Mirror
Valley Firms Push California Oil Tax
isabotage3 writes, "Still smarting from California's recent enactment of emissions caps, the oil industry is confronting another assault in the Golden State — this one bankrolled in part by Silicon Valley tycoons pushing to fund conservation and alternative-energy initiatives with a tax on oil output. Slightly more than half the money raised by the Prop 87 tax would be earmarked to help cut gasoline and diesel use. Another 27 percent would be put toward alternative-energy research at California universities. The remainder would be used to help start-ups, retrain energy workers in new fields, and for administration." Oil companies claim the backers of Prop 87, some of them venture capitalists, would profit from state money flowing into the alternative-energy projects they are funding.
It's cool to be green. Being 'enviromentally friendly' is currently some of the best marketing you can have. Take for instance, Richard Bransons latest pledge.
I'm not opposed to this sort of corporate behaviour myself.
Oil companies claim the backers of Prop 87, some of them venture capitalists, would profit from state money flowing into the alternative-energy projects they are funding.
Shocking! Because I'm sure that the oil industry never profits from any legislation that they push, right? Why is it surprising (or wrong) that people are pushing bills that help them?
The Silicon Valley tycoons who are pushing this bill aren't the same ones who are venturing into manufacturing high performance eletric cars, are they?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I live in Silicon Valley. I often hear anti-prop 87 ads on the radio and TV. One day as I was driving to work I decided to listen to the ad carefully. At the end, as required by law, they state their sponsors. They (quickly) list a number of individuals, the last 2 or 3 of which are actually oil companies. It is for this reason that I decided to look into the issue. This tax will be levied on the oil companies. They will be forbidden by the law to pass the cost on to consumers, so this will NOT raise gas prices. So, to recap: 1) oil companies have to pay their fair share to improve the environment; 2) the tax cannot be passed on to cunsumers; 3) This will benefit researchers and universities Do not be fooled by the anti-prop 87 propoganda.
Ads? What ads?
It would be a shame for somebody to profit from something ethical and/or useful.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
Yeah, except california is a big state. They wouldn't stop selling gas there if it meant the gas was being used to burn babies alive, they'd still sell because it's such a big market.
While I definitely like the idea of strongly encouraging less oil consumption and less driving, the Libertarian in me says the government should stay out of it. If there's a profit to be made in alternative energy, someone will do it. More importantly, private business can do it a hell of a lot better than the government could hope to, and the free market will select a better winner than the government can.
One of these days, I'm gonna finally move myself out of the Socialist Republic of California...
Who are the backers? Cause, ummm...., I've got this friend who's looking to buy some stocks.
This is just an attempt at the 'blame game' to punish oil companies and help California seem more 'progressive'. While they're at it why don't they tax Coca Cola so that we can find soda-alternative drinks! Or maybe tax Silicon Valley itself a little higher to fund research into alternative computing?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Beats the current federal strategy of "cut taxes and spend."
Of course, that's like saying "having an eye gouged out beats getting disemboweled," but I'm just sayin'.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Oil companies claim the backers of Prop 87, some of them venture capitalists, would profit from state money flowing into the alternative-energy projects they are funding.
Ah, business patent violation I'm sure. No wonder the oil companies are mad.
Finkployd
It reminds of that manuscript recently dug up from the 14th century.
If there's one thing we don't need, it's the King and his "men of science" dictating their values to the marketplace. It's businesses like mine that are leading this nation to prosperity. If I have to refrain from tossing my pissbucket out the front steps, and deliver it all the way to the cesspool, it will cost me money, and I may have to lay off some peasants as a result. Besides, it hasn't been proven that these so-called bacteria even exist, and if they do, maybe they don't cause the black death. Maybe they will make our teeth straight and white forever. I say we should wait and see.
Sometimes government-mandated values work for the greater good.
I am not grasping why the fact that it's a commodity makes a difference. It is still a product that can be withheld from consumers in particular areas if the business or businesses decide to not sell in that area. Perhaps you can enlighten me on why you think the fact that it's a commodity would make a difference. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/commodity commodity (k-md-t) n. pl. commodities 1. Something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage: "Left-handed, power-hitting third basemen are a rare commodity in the big leagues" Steve Guiremand. 2. An article of trade or commerce, especially an agricultural or mining product that can be processed and resold. 3. Advantage; benefit. 4. Obsolete A quantity of goods.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
So, you think it is ethical to tax people (take money by force) to hand it over to private entities, for political purposes, while not actually having to provide anything useful, while knowing that the results of the research will not be free (as in beer)?
Or is it just that you think Oil Companies are evil and anyone opposing them is good? Last time I checked, the Government made more on Oil Taxes than the Oil Companies made in profits.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
A far more productive activity with respect to reducing fuel usage that would not involve California creating yet another destructive tax would be to allow high density development in places like Silicon Valley. It is the height of stupidity that the same political class that wants everyone off the roads and/or to take public transportation adamantly refuses to allow the high density construction that would make it feasible. Far more fuel use reduction could be obtained by simply letting developers turn the vast suburban sprawl of places like Silicon Valley into an urban environment, but apparently this offends their sense of aesthetics.
If they were serious, they would start with the absurdly contradictory positions of city planners rather than inventing a new tax that will invariably get pissed away with no obvious benefit.
My memory is fuzzy, but I think one of the initiatives meant to encourage alternative-fuel R&D was a big subsidy for that industry. This gets added to our tax bill alongside the giant subsidies to the oil industry.
I don't get it. If you want to level the playing field, why not retract the fossil fuel subsidies?
On a sidenote: do conservatives really think the US has a "free market" when all this govt. money is being pumped into damn near every industry?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Let me get this straight... the fat cats are worried other fat cats will get a shot at the saucer of milk, even though it'll still all be paid for by the consumer?
The Fat Cats want the consumer to have as much excess money as possible to buy more of his product. The Nanny State wants the consumer to have the minimal amount of money possible to not revolt.
Oh, I agree. Cut Taxes and spend less. This is bad why?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
1c1
Yeah, except california is a big state. They wouldn't stop selling gas there if it meant they had to burn babies alive to make oil, they'd still sell because it's such a big market.
\ No newline at end of file
It's better than not to tax, and spend anyway. Or to tax, then not spend (there's no return if there's no investment). I'd rather have a sensible tax-and-spend system - provided the spending was going to produce a return to the community and not to a specific individual or corporation - than have no tax and no investment outside of high-profit sectors. I'd also rather see a tax that reflected the true cost of the commodity it was taxing. Oil is expensive on the environment and on the infrastructure, and someone eventually ends up paying for the repair work. What's so wrong with placing the burden on those who create the burden?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
That was supposed to be a diff patch. (Insert lameness filter bitching here)
Have you been living in a cave? The current administration is guilty of "cut taxes and spend more", not less. They are known as "borrow and spend" Republicans.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
There was no "less" on the end of his statement.
Bush has been spending freely like there's no tomorrow. No war, corporate perk or handout to the rich that can't be put on the credit card for others to pay later. While cutting taxes for the top 1%.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Its not short-sighted. They just know there is only so much room on that teet, and they are already there.
Do you remember that Ken Lay was on the VP's energy task force? Do you remember right after that how CA had rolling blackouts due to the 'speculation' in the free market trading of electricity? Do you remember that Enron supplied the energy market that CA was using?
Open your eyes my friend. They arent being short-sighted. They are pissed because THEY might be pulled off the teet you so eloquently speak of.
Think about it. The Oil Companies refuse to sell in California, which alienates every gas station owner and motorist in the state. This creates an instant demand and relatively easy to modify distribution system there. Someone with a lot of ethanol could be in business in a very big way if that happened.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
Still smarting from California's recent enactment of emissions caps, the oil industry is confronting another assault...
Poor, poor oil executives :'(
Damn it people, when will you finally stand up and say "enough is enough?" These people already have to suffer through the uncertainty of how to spend billions in federal subsidies, and what to do with their record-breaking profits, higher than that of any other industry at any other time in human history... that's a lot of pressure! And now this?!
These people are true unsung heroes.
I am the man with no sig!
I live in California. We have the highest gas prices in the nation. This prop will make gas prices go even HIGHER. I know the law makes it illegal for the gas companies to pass the tax on to consumers, but they will. How are you going to prove that any price hikes after this law is passed are not a result of the new taxes? You can't and you won't. Also, there is NO OVERSIGHT of the money that is raised by this new tax. There is no way to hold the people who are going to allocate this money accountable. I almost always vote no on these propositions. We're being taxed enough.
anyone could buy it and then resell it in california, just raises the price a tad
That is exactly the short-sightedness I'm talking about. There's plenty of room at this sow's tit. Just because a couple upstarts have snuggled in doesn't mean that there's any less milk.
It just requires a different strategy.
Tax a business, their costs increase, they pass that charge onto their customers. If you are going to tax it, tax it at the pump so everyone knows about it. Provide tax relief for people who will be impacted, and get on with it.
Know why gas went to $3/gal in the US?? Because PEOPLE WERE WILLING TO PAY IT. They griped, they whined, they complained, but everyone still went down to the gas station once or twice a week and filled up. Don't believe me?? Why do people pay 5 cents more a gallon for gas when they could go across the street and get it for less?? Or 20 cents when they could drive 5 miles and get it for less?? Because they can. Oh, they'll whine about the cost, and then they'll eat Kraft Macaroni and Cheese one night a week instead of spending $25 for pizza for the family to make up for it.
My heart goes out for the minority that can't afford it, but businesses are in business to make money, not provide charity work. The funniest thing I heard was someone whining about Exxon's record profits. I didn't hear anyone offering to give them money several years ago when their profits were in the crapper.
My daughter, bless her heart, wanted a new car. She went out and bought a Yaris and now gets 40MPG. Toyota can't keep them on the lot. I bought a motorcycle a year ago and get 50MPG, so there are already means to reduce consumption.
As for those 'cheaper alternatives', where are they. Ethonal?? I've read mixed reviews, some claiming it's the answer to everything, some claiming that the resulting agribusiness pollution might be worse than what comes out of our tailpipes now. Hybrid cars?? First, they cost more. Maybe their effective MPG makes up for some of it, but the anlysis I've seen says they are still more expensive in the long run once you start swapping out batteries. Biodiesel?? There is only so much french fry oil in the country.
My fellow citizens of the USA have it easy -- just look at the price of gas around the world. This is one of the cheapest places to by it.
And we still whine....
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
While cutting taxes for the top 1%.
Is that the same top 1% that still pay a multiple of the taxes that the other percentages pay, or is there a different top 1%?
It would be good if they implemented these taxes over a period of time. Say raising ten cents every 6 months. If you do that, you give the sellers and buyers time to adjust. The real issue is that we politics coming in and skewing things all the time. JC pushed America hard core towards Alternative. Reagan pushed us back towards oil. Poppa Bush/Clinton left it up to the free market. And W. has pushed us hard core towards oil. If a state is going to have a success, they need a long-term view on change and one that is voted in and can not be repealed. If the tax is applied over a period of time AND they know that it will increase (as opposed to hoping that it will decrease), then companies such as EEStore and Tesla will do what GM/Ford/Toyota/etc are unwilling to do.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Businesses profit from legislation. Other businesses outraged. Film at 11.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
The Fat Cats want the consumer to have as much excess money as possible to buy more of his product. The Nanny State wants the consumer to have the minimal amount of money possible to not revolt.
Ideally, you want to maximise your return on as little product as possible, that way you don't run out of your money making stock. Doubled the price, gasoline still sold in large quantities. I work in California and am shocked how many people won't pay $180 for annual school bus fare, but will happily join the morning grid-lock to transport their kids and burn through a few $ of fuel per day.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
anyone could buy it and then resell it in california, just raises the price a tad
Which either reduces the demand for it or leaves even less money in the consumer's pockets.
"It's a big market" does not contradict "the gasoline is taxed into unprofitability". The idea about "market share" being more important than "profits" was only true in 1999 ;-)
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Here in California we already have the most expensive fuel in the US, except for perhaps some locations in Hawaii. We have the least affordable housing in the US, except for perhaps Manhattan. New refineries will probably never be built in California. There will probably never be significant new oil development in California. Lawmakers are considering requiring that imported power come from power plants that meet California greenhouse emission standards.
I know what problems continuing to increase the price of oil and energy in this state will cause, but what problems will it solve?
Anyway, this new tax should free up general funds for prisons and prison guards, which burned through about 7.5 billion dollars in 2005. So there is that.
Don't tax oil/fuel, simply include it in the cap'n trade emission system. This'll send the funds directly to the greener systems without the politicians first getting their greasy paws on it. It reduces their ability to f*ck it all up.
Deleted
Our current slimy governor promised to cut taxes but didn't mention that he would have to borrow $15 billion to meet the budget deficit. (His promised budget cuts and savings never materialized... big suprise here.) The idiots voted for him.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
I was very amused by the quote from one of the backers of the proposition defending it by saying "It will only last a maximum of ten years!" What an awful defense, not just from a perspective of logic (bad is bad, regardless of duration) but we all know that taxes are much more likely to be refreshed than repealed. On another note, oil companies are already researching and developing alternative energy sources, because they are not idiots. They know that oil supplies are finite, but it's easy to pick on oil companies since people dislike them. Yes, I live in Silicon Valley as well.
We're the world's 6th largest economy. If we tank, they tank. Demand plummets because California's out of the equation. Oil prices fall, and their stock falls.
Plus, we get to pursue alternative energy a lot faster. California will be bruised but we'll come out of it even better off than Brazil.
Then the rest of the world will follow our example, and the oil companies will get bent over like a cocktail waitress wandering into the NFL post game locker room.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
How about a tax credit for telecommuting? Ding! Traffic goes away.
But see, that would take control away from asscrack middle managers who insist on being able to penalize people for failing to leave for work two and a half hours early (and therefore miss breakfast and time with family) to overcome miles of 5 MPH traffic and unreasonable traffic signals. All we have to do to solve 21st century traffic problems is to get the fuck OUT of the 19th century workplace.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Personally, I took the grandparent's post to mean something more like "I agree, how come no one (or atleast neither major party) thinks that cutting taxes and spending less is a good idea (/why do they think this is bad)?"
Increased costs are always passed on to consumers. If oil production becomes less profitable, supply is reduced, and, guess what, the price goes up. You can't legislate pricing without inducing shortages (or, alternatively, in the case of price supports, creating surpluses). Anyone here remember gasoline rationing? Was your license plate even or odd?
As opposed to tax cuts and spend?
I prefer those that know how to balance a budget vs. those that seem to run huge deficits that kill the economy.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Because the 'burden' is nearly impossible to quantify.
If I were to argue the other side of this I'd tell you that crude oil and the products derived from it do far more to benefit humanity than harm it. I'd tell you that a big reason why any infrastructure to tax is because oil helped build it, fund it, and sustain it.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Sure beats the Republican alternative: Spend and spend.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
When the issue is a California proposition, the best article we could find to link to was from the "Northwest Florida Daily News"??? Huh?
Here are some more local sources that might be useful in the debate... and yes, the critical sites do raise the same point... from within California.
(Neutral)
Secretary of State's Analysis
(Critical)
Local Blogger
Official "No" Site
(Favorable)
Official "Yes" Site
You do realize that more people have died in California Car Accidents than US soldiers in Iraq War, during the same time frame, right?
And while you're on the subject, how much money is not being a Muslim or dead worth to you? Or perhaps we should be like Chamberlain and bring back a piece of paper stating Hitler will not invade.
While I have my problems with Bush, I don't see the democrats offering anything worth considering except "we're not Bush". They could be worse than Bush, it is possible, you know.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You really think rich people pay taxes? Really?
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Isn't the point to push people away from using fuel by making it more expensive?
Deleted
Forcible transfer of wealth from the citizens to the wealthy and the corporate elite = the American way
Transfer of wealth, forcible or market-aggravated, from the wealthy and corporate elite to the citizens = godless communism = bad, bad thing.
[neo con parody off]
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Why shouldn't we cut taxes for the top 1%, as long as we are cutting them for everyone? In fact, everyone who actually pays taxes got a tax cut-- and the people on the bottom got the biggest percentage, so it was still good ol' socialism at work. But you probably couldn't know that because all the media ever reports is "tax breaks for the rich."
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
The people who create the burden are those driving around in cars. Petroleum has many other uses other than burning it.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Working from home for a day already saves you about $20 in the Bay Area not to mention 1-2 hr of commute. That's about $4000 gross in a year and almost 20 workdays of commute time if you do it twice a week.
Exactly how much more credit do you need?
Oil companies claim the backers of Prop 87, some of them venture capitalists, would profit from state money flowing into the alternative-energy projects they are funding.
This just in: people who support proposed law think they somehow stand to benefit from said law. Film at 11.
Saying "yeah, of course YOU like that, it does good things for YOU!" is no argument against anything. You need to show that it also does bad things for someone else (or in the case of something tax-funded, where there's the automatic bad thing of costing us money, you need to show that it provides insufficient public benefit).
This is no more interesting than saying "Rich folk claim that welfare supporters, many of them poor, stand to benefit from such laws". Of COURSE they do. The question to the rest of us is, do WE benefit from THEIR benefit? If these VCs make money off of projects they fund which also benefit the rest of us, where's the loss?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Companies do not pay taxes, only consumers do. In the company ledgers, taxes are a cost of doing business which are calculated into the price of the products they sell. So while it might sound all high and mighty that you are "sticking it to the man!" by imposing high taxes on companies, what you are really doing is telling voters to take in the rear. If you want to make alternative energy technologies more attractive to consumers, you have to price them competitively with fossil based fuels. Taxing fossil fuels to the same cost level of alternative energy fuels is nothing more than an attack on the pocketbooks of the poor.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
It isn't different at all. In fact, at the time, we warned you that it was just practice to go after shit you like later on.
It doesn't matter whether cigarettes are good for you or instant death. What matters is that the tactics used, and used effectively, established the precedent for 1984 style socially manipulative government:
You fat, bad smelling, chip eating, who plays the wrong to sort of games driver, you! Become tolerant, or we will force you to become tolerant by making you adopt our tolerant lifestyle which reviles your behavior, because once you let us do it to smokers, you gave us the power to do it to anybody.
Mwuaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!
KFG
The Fat Cats want the consumer to have as much excess money as possible to buy more of his product.
Which explains why wages have been stagnant for almost 50 years.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
If the oil companies were smart, they would start up alternative-energy R&D labs of their own and then they wouldn't lose any of that money, really. They'd just be compelled to do the research themselves (which would save them having to buy the patents and then lock them away, which is what they're going to try to do anyway).
Exactly how much more credit do you need?
The businesses need the credit so they'll have a reason to tell the rat fuck lying bloated hairpiece phone-flipping rancid asscrack to shut the fuck up about 7AM donut meetings.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
"Oil companies claim the backers of Prop 87, some of them venture capitalists, would profit from state money flowing into the alternative-energy projects they are funding."
What do you mean, "claim?" That's the entire point of the thing. It's not like this is some hidden agenda here.
Although I guess it would be hilarious for Unocal (Chevron, whatever) to stop selling oil in California.
Yes, this legislation would reduce the profitability of selling oil in California, but it would still be profitable. Prices might go up (even though they say they will not go up), but it wouldn't mean there'd be no oil imported to California. If the legislation actually has some way to fix prices, and there are shortages nationally, then maybe this could make the shortages focus in CA. I guess. We'd need someone who understood both this bill + world oil economics to tell us, though.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I agree that the Republicrats are spending too much. Why not have a government commission on how to cut spending. I see so much waste everywhere that it is sickening.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
What alternative energy research are they doing? Links, please?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
The tax is on extraction of oil not sales of oil, California remains one of the larger oil extraction states in the Union. The fungible nature of oil means it's terribly difficult to actually harm someone by boycotting in either direction (it's pretty cheap to ship oil even a long distance so if for example California producers stop selling to California consumers the roughly 1 million barrels of oil extracted in California would just go from California to say Oregon, Washington, Nevada and Arizona while oil would be imported from Venezuela. Extra shipping costs would probably be about $2 per barrel (or about $0.05/gallon of gas/heating oil). Good for the shippers of oil (pipelines and boats), small losses for producers and consumers of oil.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
More importantly, private business can do it a hell of a lot better than the government could hope to, and the free market will select a better winner than the government can.
You have proof? Or is this just a statement of fact where no proof exists?
There is no such thing as a free market. It's like Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy, or WMDs in Iraq. There are always people who control the landscape of the market, whether it is the big boys (AT&T, Microsoft, oil cartels, etc) or the government (often the proxy for the big boys). Whether market dominance is long term or transient, the affect on the market is detrimental and permanent, and never in favor of the individual citizen.
I'm not defending the government, because it is usually filled with people who are unfit to govern. I'm just saying, putting your trust in the free market is like walking into a seedy Mexican bar where known organ harvesters hang out saying, "Yessiree, I just got the results of my medical exam, and I have perfect kidneys, and a beautiful purple-grey healthy liver. Yep. I have great body parts."
As far as stuff like alternative energy sources go, there's no money to be made until those sources have been found, developed, and made economical vis-a-vis petroleum. And believe it or not, many modern advances have come because of government investment in research. I'd go so far to suggest that government research has resulted in more economic health than private research.
Consider the internet as a prime example.
What was the "free market" doing? The participants were fighting amongst themselves, and not advancing anything at all like the internet. We had IPX/SPX, NetBEUI/NetBIOS, yadda-yadda-yadda. It took substantial (though not massive) government funding to provide us with a simple, resilient, adaptable protocol suite, and the infrastructure to make it useful. If we were stuck with the "free market," we'd all be using MSN dialup right now, except the oldtimers, who'd be using AOL (who would've purchased everyone else).
The free market has shown itself to be a fiction. When you pull the curtain back, you won't find a kindly, slightly-bewildered gentleman. You'll find the hideous faces of the corporate monsters who will offer you no alternative but their alternative. When they are mighty, they will eat the smaller competition who might possibly challenge them someday. They will purchase protection from the government where they can, as if it is the government's duty to protect them from their customers.
I don't believe the government should meddle in everything. But I don't think we should leave something as important as our future in the hands of corporations, either.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
It doesn't matter whether you're building wind turbines, solar arrays, hydropower, tidal power, geothermal plants, trash-to-steam plants, or cow-fart turbines, or just training hamsters to spin little generators. In California, someone will bitch about it and figure out a way to shut you down.
R&D is expensive and risky, and paying for it with a tax levied on your own product may end up with you losing more money than you can possibly hope to recover doing R&D that doesn't further your current business interests.
Come on people, this is America we're talking about here.
If you want to reduce dependence on foreign oil, make sure that advertisements, TV shows, and movies only associate automobiles with fat, ugly people. As it is right now, all the stars drive big cars - the less fuel efficient the better. Can you name me one automobile over $100,000 that gets at least 25 mpg?
Even better, someone whip up an astroturf campaign complete with "scientific studies" that show that fossil fuels cause impotence.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
Want to reduce emissions? "Tax" all CO2 producing fuel based on its carbon content. Let the tax be passed on to the consumers. Then, at the end of the year, distribute the money evenly, with checks to every man, woman, and child. Thus anyone who reduces emissions gets a bonus, while long-range Hummer drivers pay more. The incentive to produce alternative energy will come from its lower cost, the disincentive to produce more greenhouse gas will be represented in higher costs.
Simple, few bases for anyone to object (cabbies and long-distance truckers would have to raise their fares), promotes alternative energy.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
The oil companies aren't bothered by 'ethics', so I don't see how we can. I said 'how', not 'why'. There's plenty of good to be had adhearing to ethics, but we're way past the stage where doing so will get anything done. The reality of the situation is, as oil gets more scarce, oil companies get richer. They don't care if world economies crumble. Thanks to cheap telecommunications and airplanes they can live thousands of miles away from the hell on earth they create. Something needs to be done, and soon. There isn't a lot of room to maneuver. We're gonna have to make some ugly compromises, fight fire with fire and what not. If that means kicking a few billions to private firms ( like we've been doing since this country was founded), so be it. At least patents eventually expire, energy monopolies aren't so easy to get rid of.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Tax a business, their costs increase, they pass that charge onto their customers. If you are going to tax it, tax it at the pump so everyone knows about it.
So here's the deal. Right now Bob smith rides a bike to work instead of driving a car. His chances of developing health problems due to smog are not reduced by this. His chances of dying in a horrible disaster caused in part by global warming from greenhouse gasses are not reduced by this. He still has to put up with the unpleasant odor and unsightly pollution. Why is he paying the costs of gas user's bad habit? What if, instead of a bike, he drives an eco-friendly vehicle. It costs more but does not contribute to this problem. Why does he still have to pay for the problem then?
The answer is, using gas has costs to all of society, not just gas users. As such, it is appropriate in many people's minds to charge gas users a tax to repay that cost to society and particularly to those who do not contribute to the problem, like Bob. Labeling at as a tax, makes people think this money goes to the government, but in truth it indirectly goes to Bob and those like him and those developing solutions for those like him, repayment for not contributing to the problem, but putting up with it.
Know why gas went to $3/gal in the US?? Because PEOPLE WERE WILLING TO PAY IT.
True, the market is not subject to normal free market pressures due to certain parties ability to adjust the rate of production.
As for those 'cheaper alternatives', where are they. Ethonal?? I've read mixed reviews, some claiming it's the answer to everything, some claiming that the resulting agribusiness pollution might be worse than what comes out of our tailpipes now. Hybrid cars?? First, they cost more. Maybe their effective MPG makes up for some of it, but the anlysis I've seen says they are still more expensive in the long run once you start swapping out batteries. Biodiesel?? There is only so much french fry oil in the country.
The truth is, when gas becomes too expensive alternatives will be implemented. There is an initial barrier and infrastructure cost, but it can be overcome. This law helps overcome it while charging those who contribute to a societal problem and rewarding those who don't. It makes sense in principal, but may be unworkable in practice.
My fellow citizens of the USA have it easy -- just look at the price of gas around the world. This is one of the cheapest places to by it.
Yup. And one of the most expensive places if you don't buy it, because you still pay with increased risks and decreased cost of living, for the problems caused by others.
I've suggested that oil retrieved from ANWAR. If the gov't picks up the tab for getting the oil, the gov't should keep the profits. Mandate that 100% of the profit go toward renewable energy. That way, you appease the tree huggers and the industrialists at the same time!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
This observation is a basic fact of the free market.
What this fact does not tell you is what the manifestations of adaption are. The manifestations depend largely on the rate at which scarcity develops. Consider two extreme scenarios: gradual scarcity and sudden, massive scarcity.
In the first scenario, oil dries up slowly. There is plenty of time for everyone to adapt. One possibility is finding an alternative to oil. Another possibility is that if no alternative to oil is found, then life becomes too expensive to live, and the population will very gradually decline to a level that existing supplies of oil can support. (Note that fertilizer is derived from oil.) Everyone is happy.
In the second scenario, oil dries up suddenly. It disappears after 1 week, counting from today. One week after the disappearance of oil, starvation will be widespread in the West as the transportation and the farming system stop working. Bacteria and fungal infections will run rampant as the technology powered by energy derived from oil grinds to a halt. The population declines by 50% after 6 months.
The question is which scenario best matches the scarcity rate of oil. Many geologists suggest the first, optimistic scenario. However, these geologists are basing their guess on a world where only the West is consuming oil.
In the future, half of the planet will be consuming oil at a high rate. We are moving quickly to the second scenario. The free market does indeed work in both scenarios, but the second scenario is excruciatingly painful.
>Nope. The law forbids them from raising the prices in California to make up for said cost, so
>in reality the cost will be borne by oil users in all the US, not just CA.
Sure. They will just have a price increase anyway and say it was for something else unrelated to the tax.
Businesses never pay taxes. They just pass them on to consumers.
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
As I understand it, the proposition will tax oil taken out of the ground from within California. Oil from within California will now be more expensive. The oil companies will then buy more oil from Alaska or Venezuela and pay the cost of shipping the oil to California. The oil companies may not be allowed to pass on the cost of the tax directly to the consumer, but they will pass on the cost of transporting oil from greater distances. The price of gas will go up, make no mistake about it.
Actually, here in California we have the same "cut taxes and spend and borrow so our children will pay for it" philosophy.
Actually, at this rate it's going to be your great-great-grandchildren who'll still be paying for it, and that's only if your children suddenly decide to become fiscally responsible. With the example their parents set, I'd say that's a pretty fucking unlikely scenario.
The only way to drive the point home is to invent practical immortality. If it eventually dawned on everyone that THEY would end up paying the price, inflated with godawful interest over time, then perhaps they might start thinking a bit more about the borrowing they're doing. Until that happens, though....
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
That is exactly the short-sightedness I'm talking about. There's plenty of room at this sow's tit.
This sow's tit is the pocketbook of the taxpayer - and apparantly the departure of so many of those paying taxes from the state is read as an incentive to 'squeeze 'em more".
Corporations are powerful, and the oil corps even more so. But the state can punch back much harder.
There is already precedent for allowing governments to use eminent domain to maximize economic use of property. If the oil companies don't want to make their oil distribution system and properties profitable in California, I'm sure the state would have a lot of fun condemning all the properties and putting them to use with someone else.
It would certainly be an ugly fight, but I think it would be more harmful for the oil companies than the state of California. California is big enough that they could negotatiate directly with some oil producing country to provide the fuel they need while they get their newly-state-owned oil facilities online.
>If I've got to shell out a couple more bucks to live in a state with cleaner air and more
/your/ wallet you are reaching into while you are smiling.
>sustainable practices, then I'll reach into my wallet with a smile.
Just make sure it's only
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Just google for "alternative energy source" and all your energy problems go away!
In the long run this might actually be a good thing for California. If it encourages oil to be consumed from the Middle East or Venezuela first, then it just means that oil is still in the ground to be pumped out and sold later, when the price will probably be higher. Given the rate at which oil prices have risen and will probably rise in the future (well ahead of the rest of the market), keeping the oil in the ground for later probably isn't a bad investment. However, it's not one that most companies would make, because they're too focused on short-term profitability.
By making it economically unfeasible to use the oil now, Californians might be unwittingly doing themselves a favor: they'll suffer now, but once the oil elsewhere is gone and they're all that's left (of easily extractable reserves), it's fat city.
The only exception to this would be if there was some plan to take the money that would be gained from pumping and selling that oil now, and doing something with it that would be more profitable than just leaving it in the ground until the price goes up. Given the way that both industry and government squander cash, I suspect this is unlikely. Whatever they're going to make by selling it now will probably just be blown on stuff that has little or no lasting impact.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Why not tax candy makers for the road side litter? Why not tax Mc Donalds for the fat people who need medical treatment? Why not tax bars and restaurants for the medical treatment of people injured by alcohol related road accidents?
Why not tax everything to forcibly achieve your social goals?
Do you not understand that Capitalism is fundmentally moral because it is the VOLUNTARY exchange of values between two individuals? And Socialism is fundamentally immoral because it is the COERCIVE association of individuals? The relationship of Capitalism to Socialism is the relationship of sex to rape.
The ecomnomic lesson of the 20th century is that Socialism and Collectivist economics in general are total failures. The corolary is that free Capitialism brings prosperity and general well being.
Stealing earned money from the oil corporations to be destroyed by the Socialist California universities will only add to the university bureaucracy. Can you really believe the tax will be levied on the oil companies and no part of the tax will be passed on to oil consumers? Are you that economically ignorant?
Prop 187 puts the government in charge of determining the next generation of energy technology rather than the market place. Essentially, government drones will be churning out ideas in a vacuum, spending your hard earned dollars in the process.
The power of government is the power of NEGATION. It does a fine job of negation, but a damn poor one of creation. The old proverb about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions seems apropos.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
I think a lot of you are missing the essential point here: alternative energy is inherently BETTER than oil in ways that can't be measured by the economy. Specifically, it is sustainable and environmentally friendly, whereas oil is neither. The goal of this tax is to slow the growth of an undesireable industry (oil) and accelerate the growth of a desireable one (clean energy). This is important for two reasons: it will reduce gas emissions, and it will help ensure that there is something to fall back on when oil starts to run out (which, believe it or not, will probably happen within your lifetime).
While cutting taxes for the top 1%.
Well, if you cut taxes proportionally, since they pay the most in (as a result of our "progressive" system), they would tend to get the biggest cut.
Frankly I don't see how the so-called "progressive" system has any basis in fairness. I can see why someone who makes more should pay a greater absolute dollar amount, but not a higher percentage. If everyone pays 20% or something, and I make $20k and you make $500k, then you'll end up paying far more in taxes than I do. That difference is at least justifiable: if you make more money then you have more to lose, so in some way you're 'getting more' from government -- if it were to disappear, the rich would fall harder than the poor. However how this justifies a higher marginal rate for income I fail to understand, and frankly I find the attempts at justification ("well, they can afford it...") disgusting. Almost everyone could afford to pay more in taxes, assuming they're not starving to death; that doesn't mean it's justified.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
California constitutes about 1100 billion dollars of GNP. That translates to a lot of tax money.
And if the oil stops, so does that.
The fed would FORCE them to sell - and despite any laws that exist against forced transactions, they'd make a way for it to be legal.
The problem with your idea is that it makes sense.
The /. crowd will probably gain some employment opportunities from the ventures raised on these tax dollars. Does anyone think this will influence the way you view the situation?
I'm going to vote for it just because it will mean more jobs in my sector. It will probably increase demand for high tech workers and could help wages across the board for high demand electrical engineering posistions in California.
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. -Confucius
Shell reported 22.49 billion in profit for 2005. I think they could afford to have even a lot of tax increase.
Hey, wait, I thought capitalism was supposed to bring profits down, because everyone would compete and so there would be no room for large profits, and so someone would just undersell you? I've only seen profits increasing...
Where's the bad part?
No, I haven't noticed that. It seems to me that the requirements are pretty clearly stated, as in many another similar self-funding legislation all over the world, and why should "oversight" be required? Laws against murder don't have "oversight" provisions and it hasn't resulted in formerly honest citizens murdering people right and left. Are you seriously proposing that this law is being set up so that evildoers pretending to be green can steal all the tax dollars without really being green? C'mon, that's less believable than a congressional toupee.
Are you complaining that the bill actually provides taxation to cover its spending, or just trotting out an old tired meme to pre-empt critical thought? Would a "spend and spend and spend and spend" bill be better?
"the amounts we've spent on IRAQ war for Oil + DOD expenditures to insure oceans are safe for Oil shipments. (IRAQ 100B/yr + DOD 200B/yr )/(US oil consumption) ~15Mbbl/day/365 == $54.80 per barrel of oil in direct subsidies .
Or the costs to mitigate the environmental impact of GW.. Est 200 Trillion(total) by 2056 for looses&mitigation incurred by submerged coast lines, dozens of land falling Cat-5's per year, crop failures, etc == 4 Trillion per year/(Oil share 33% towards GW) /15Mbbl /day / 365 == $237 per barrel indirect
environmental impact. Note: This
estimate may be a gross underestimation!! What price do
you associate with an activity that has a high probability of
triggering of an Extinction Level Event?
Each of those huge costs are currently hidden from view..
The bill sponsors are doing the right thing by adding just a small fraction of the real costs of oil back into the production equation".
The Oil company mods are at it again.. surpressing another inconvient truth.
I would also point out that up to this point and unlike nearly every other state and country in the world, California collects NO royalties from Oil pumped out the ground.
That's a bad metaphor, not a bad analogy.
Take off every 'sig' !!
Incorrect. The prop doesn't tax the oil companies per se. It taxes oil pumped out of the ground in California. The law does say they can't pass the cost on to their customers, the refineries. Let's assume that the producers follow this, rather than justifying price hikes by being just a little bit creative. Costs for in-state pumping will go up, but the cost to run a well is constant, thus low-yielding wells will be shut down sooner. And companies doing exploration are going to look elsewhere rather than explore in Cali. Thus in-state production will go down-- estimates I've read go from 10-20% reduction in in-state production over 5-10 years. Consumers will still drive, demand will remain fairly constant, which means more oil will be shipped in from Alaska and overseas. Shipped in oil is more expensive. Refineries will have to pay the higher price for out-of-state sourced crude, and they most certainly can and will pass those higher costs on to their consumers. Net result-- if 87 passes, Cali gas prices will go up. Economics of commodities is a byatch.
The other thing I anticipate happening is that the oil companies are going to redouble their efforts to get permission to drill in Federal controlled waters. That means anything more then 3 miles off the coast. There is absolutely nothing Californians can do about it if Congress lets them do this, it's Federal "land" (at least treated as land) covered by federal law. And guess what, oil pumped out of Federal lands isn't subject to prop 87's severance tax. Problem solved!
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
I agree with you. I am getting sick and tired of the anti-road, anti-car, anti-low density, and anti-suburban arguments made by environmentalists who wish to kick us out of our cars and suburban homes and force us into high-density apartments and onto buses and light rail. I don't want to live in a high-rise 10-story housing project, just because it's "smart growth" and "more environmentally friendly than a suburban 2-story house." I don't want to ride a stinky, crowded, and slow bus or light rail train with odd characters and other dangers. I want my cars and my freeways, darn it! Automobiles are still much faster at getting from point A to point B for daily tasks than public transportation is, even with the growing amount of traffic thanks to California's not building of any major roads since the 1970s (except for some examples like Highway 85 in Santa Clara County and Interstate 105 in LA), along with the amount of growth.
This culture of NIMBYism, extreme environmentalist politics, "smart growth," and other related politics, I feel, is a threat to our quality of life. These groups don't care about quickness and efficiency with transportation. These groups don't care about the quality of life that you have in a suburban neighborhood vs. that in an urban environment. Although I feel the environment is important, what about efficiency, convenience, and having peace and quiet in your home? Is forcing everybody to go from a 30 minute commute on a freeway to work to a 1-2 hour commute involving public transportation and cycling really the way to go? Is raising gas prices astronomically just to "give back to society the damage that oil causes the environment" the way to encourage people to switch to more environmentally-friendly fuels, or to encourage oil companies to invest in alternatives? California needs to reverse the trends started by the Jerry Brown administration of not building, and return to the days of the Pat Brown administration, back when we had good roads, good schools, and a good quality of life. We need to start building public works projects again. We need to get our road system back into shape and upgrade, widen, and expand our road network. Environmentalists need to work on promoting technology that still allows us to live in our suburbs and drive our freeways and expressways yet makes them more environmentally friendly (for example, promoting people to drive cars with alternative fuels instead of forcing everybody to take public transportation). I refuse to listen to environmentalists who want to change my life and knock me back into the days of horses-and-buggies. I want to see technology, not ludditism.
As for the quote about liberals, remember that some conservatives are also pushing for "smart-growth" and other related ideas. This isn't about liberalism or conservatism; this is about people who want to force people to live in their version of utopia versus people who want people to live in whatever manner they feel fit.
Actually, that's not true. The incidence of the tax depends on the slopes of the supply and demand curves. Assuming neither curve is vertical, both producer surplus and consumer surplus will decrease, and consumption will decrease as well.
(This result is due to the fact that when producers raise prices in order to pass the tax on to consumers, consumers reduce consumption to some extent, which reduces profit for the producer. If, however, consumer demand for the product is price inelastic (i.e. consumers buy the same amount regardless of the price), then yes, the tax will be borne completely by consumers. But demand for oil is not inelastic.)
"how much money is not being a Muslim or dead worth to you?"
A lot. But what did Iraq have to do with that? Why don't we bomb every other country just to be safe? You never know, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil could be having dreams of imperialism! We must invade before the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud!
Between this proposed oil tax and Locklear's suit against 8 auto makers, California is going to tank its own economy.
Iceberg? What iceberg?
Look Out Above!
Sorry, just finished my tasty free lunch. Free to me, anyway.
I was just looking at the family ration books for sugar, gas, and tires the other night. We had extra gas tickets because Daddy Chuck was a preacher.
Oh, wait, you're talking about the 1970s pseudo-rationing, that anyone with half a brain cell could easily subvert. Our neighbors used to share their license plates with us.
Never mind.
That's a great idea! I'll find 30 or so of my friends, give us a year and 30 Million dollars and I'll give you a commission report that says "Spend less"
I support the troops. I pay f'ing taxes.
It's also a good financial decision. By riding a bike, I can manage to have a positive net worth, unlike most people in my income bracket and age group.
The people of Hawaii, that is. Interesting economics experiment they tried last year. They capped wholesale gas prices. And surprise surprise, wholesale gas supply decreased, since produces would rather sell their gas elsewhere for more money. Supply go down, prices go up. Retail gas prices went up even faster after the cap. Try to cap retail prices and you'll see a black market emerge immediately. See any of a variety of pages such as this for more details.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Can you believe they were whining about the price? I mean it's like them whining about how much the air companies charge for air. $3/cubic foot. I mean if people are willing to pay it then that justifies the price. I myself have refused to buy air and am perfectly fine with not breathing.
I know! My heart goes out tho those minorities who are suffering too. It's not like everyone needs to drive to work. I mean doesn't everyone have easy access to public transportation?
I did my civic duty back then. I bought as much gas as I could to help them out with their massive suffering and complete lack of money which led to such a tremendous hardship for them.
See alternatives. Just like I was saying. Instead of buying gas you can buy less gas... and die in a motercycle related mishap.
Yeah there's no solution right now so we definitely shouldn't try to find one!
Know why gas went to $3/gal in the US?? Because PEOPLE WERE WILLING TO PAY IT. They griped, they whined, they complained, but everyone still went down to the gas station once or twice a week and filled up.
Yes, however to repeat what a Senator said on the matter, people sort of have to go to work regardless of the price of gas. If I don't go to work I lose everything, and public transit doesn't serve the places I've worked. Food still has to be delivered to grocery stores. Electricity still has to be generated. Supply and demand breaks down when either side of the equation becomes inelastic.
"This is because people will buy the same amount of gas no matter how much it costs, because they need the gas to live their lives. People are also not going to buy new fuel-efficient cars just to save money, becase the cost of a new car far exceeds any savings in fuel."
Broad statements like this are NOT necessarily true just because they sound logical!
Our 1990 SUV which needs to be an SUV/4X due to it's use for work in the winter. (state law enforcement in a rural area from a urban location.)was the family 'work' vehicle . The SUV gets about max 20 mpg and was replaced with a Dodge Neon which gets 32 mph. The gas milage alone makes the payment and reduces the repair and maintainace(on the 1990 SUV.)by a minimum $2500/$3000.@ year.
True, we may have to use the SUV for moderate/major Snow days in winter but even tho they may be the exception rather then the rule, it is required to work those days even more then others. 10/12 days use of the SUV aside, the Neon is efficient, comfortable and under warrenty. We actually come out ahead in $'s and cents's with the Neon gas savings paying it's own payment PLUS.
No doubt some would find our solution unaccepable due to the macho factor or unworkable due to present personal financial reasons but personnaly it was the best and brightest solution to Nevadas $3.00 a gal. summer gas and appears to have no down side for us.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It simply wastes your time and truely annoys the pig"
Well, in my case:
"Across the street" is 2 miles, each way.
You have to wait in line (remember the 70s?) at the cheaper station for several minutes before you can get to the pump.
The cheaper station is filthy, doesn't have conveniences like squeeges, paper towels, free compressor, et al., available.
It's called the federal government. They give oil companies so many subsudies and bailouts it's disgusting.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
BULLSHIT!
Anyone who believes this ought to take the damn rose-colored glasses off!
The money has to come from SOMEWHERE. And the oil companies sure as fuck aren't going to just eat it. The cost will, eventually, be passed on to the consumer.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
One of these days, I'm gonna finally move myself out of the Socialist Republic of California...
Next time you go trolling do your self a favor and choose a less simplistic political slur. As somebody who spent time in East Germany (a real life Socialist Republic) I can state with great confidence that California has next to nothing in common with a Socialist Republic.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
If the oil companies don't want to make their oil distribution system and properties profitable in California, I'm sure the state would have a lot of fun condemning all the properties and putting them to use with someone else.
Yeah, nationalization has worked so well elsewhere.
Sure. They will just have a price increase anyway and say it was for something else unrelated to the tax.
And what exactly, will they claim they need to raise prices in California to cover, but don't need to raise prices in Arizona?
Businesses never pay taxes. They just pass them on to consumers.
In this case, 90% of those consumers will be in other states. And all of those consumers will be the ones using gas, thus appropriately charging them for the damage they do to all of society and providing them with financial incentive to stop doing so as much as possible.
the tech industry is responsible for some nasty nasty pollution in CA; perhaps they should clean up their own house first before moving on to more 'noble' causes?
The free market picks the most cost efficient system, not the technically best. Whatever is "good enough" to do the job.
Deleted
Here's why:
The state of Texas is surpassing us in renewable energy development. Since they enacted their ten paragraph legislation in 1999, they've gotten 2,200 MW of wind power. How much have we gotten since 2002? 242MW. How long was our legislation? 13 pages.
What's more, renewables enjoy very broad bipartisan support in California. But since we do not have state government that is actually friendly to business, we get zip or very little actual action.
And all the while the politicians get to pat themselves on the back that they're Doing Something for the Greater Good!
It's crap like this why I've become more libertarian in my political outlook.
The point is that someone in the lower brackets needs an extra few thousand dollars a lot more than someone in the top bracket needs a few extra hundred million.
Why? Is it not his money in either case?
They should be focusing on alternative energy sources themselves because oil isn't going to last forever and they can get a jump on the future with their own research.
First of all, what makes you think they aren't? Read here, here, here, and here, for example.
Secondly, what makes you think a bunch of ex-divorce lawyers in Sacramento who don't have a dime of their own at stake have better ideas about investing in new energy research than folks with PhD's in chemical engineering and economics, who work at a major oil company's research division, and who have their pensions on the line?
Third, the way government research typically works, and works best, is when you already have a gaggle of researchers doing the work because the science (and not a popular vote) says it's worth pursuing, and you have them compete for funding. That's how the NSF works, or DARPA, for example. The stiff competition means only the best (with some obnoxious exceptions) get funded and you need to produce sound results to keep your funding. What do you suppose happens when you turn the process around and begin with the huge pile of cash, then wait to see who it attracts? Do you think you will get the best research? Or will you get a whole lot of goofballs, incompetents, and perpetual-motion weirdos who are just sane enough to use plenty of politically-correct buzzwords in their application?
Fourth, maybe the folks on the other side should also think long-term, too. If you're in the alternative-energy biz, shouldn't you be focussing on alternative capital sources (such as the marketplace), since free money from the taxpayers can't last forever?
Perhaps you just aren't paying attention...
It's possible that The Sun will spontaneously collapse into an ultra-massive black hole tomorrow...
The chances of either happening are ridiculously remote.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Adding onto the alternatives issue with hybrids, if everyone in the nation had a hybrid car, we'd still be 100% addicted to oil.
>And what exactly, will they claim they need to raise prices in California to cover, but don't
>need to raise prices in Arizona?
Duh - What makes you think they won't just raise them across the board? Or, if they can't get away with raising them in California, they'll just raise them for the rest of the country so we can all subsidize your green living?
Trust me - they won't lose a dime in profits. They'll either figure a way to hide the cost in the product, or they'll figure a way to claim it against their taxes. Either way, the taxpayers will pay.
>In this case, 90% of those consumers will be in other states. And all of those consumers will be the
>ones using gas, thus appropriately charging them for the damage they do to all of society and
>providing them with financial incentive to stop doing so as much as possible.
Why should the citizens of other states have to pay for California's environmental laws?
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
What's so wrong with placing the burden on those who create the burden?
Nothing. But those people are the consumers buying gasoline for their SUVs, not the oil companies selling it to them. If the proposition were a straightforward gas tax paid at the pump, for the purpose of reducing demand for gasoline, encouraging people to cycle or car-pool to work, and use the tax profits to pay for alternative-energy research, or pollution remediation, or research into fuel-efficiency, I'd be sort-of OK with it. (Only "sort of" because I have a hard time, based on experience, believing that those lawyers and assorted blowdry blowhards in Sacramento who thought 7th grade math was hard are going to spend my money wisely.)
The burden is created not only by people who drive vehicles, but those who depend on and use services that are provided via vehicles, yet only the driver has to pay the tax.
In general, when you want to achieve something desireable, you should get the government to take money from some people and give the money to other people. This way the state engineers human behavior to ends the wisest of us deem are most desireable, rather than just letting people do what they think is in their own best interests.
I'm curious however, that since technology products like integrated circuits, batteries and computers have lots of hidden pollution costs related to both their manufacture and their safe disposal, why those silicon valley geniuses didn't propose taxing them.
Insert witty sig here.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? It seems so reasonable. But this idea has been tried before, under the heading of 'mercantilism.' Sometimes it's tried today, under the heading of 'protective tariffs.'
But it never works. Historically, when a polity artificially cranks the price of a commodity above its market value, it just screws itself. Basically, because international economic transactions are all pretty much voluntary, you can never force a net flow of money from the rest of the world to you. You have to do something that makes people want to send you money. Like make better cars or something. If you try to squeeze it out of them by some 'clever' tax scheme, you just end up shooting yourself in the foot. You may damage everyone else's economic health a little, but you'll damage your own much more.
and what is wrong with everyone paying a flat percentage rate? Why should the lowest income brackets pay a heftier percentage of their pay in taxes? Mind you, I'm not talking about the percent before deductions, I'm talking about after all the tax shelters get deducted. Example: A race horse is not an "agricultural expense", unless, of course the horse pulls a plow during the week, and races on the weekend. I would be all for everyone paying 10% of their income in taxes, cut out the deductions, etc. This government would have money coming out of its ears.
to put it bluntly: I wish I could complain that I pay more in taxes per year than most people make.
I got nuthin
I feel that any headway with alternative fuels is going to come from the private sector, not from any state-sponsored program. I live in california, and things here are so bad that it takes months to get a pothole fixed and the people in sacramento are not people who I would trust to get anything done. Special interests practically run the state. There is already plenty of wasteful bureaucracy in this state and the last thing we need is another publically-funded think tank, especially one that is under no obligation to produce viable results. Also, why should the oil companies have to pay for this? Gas in cali is high already because of our clean-air taxes, and just within the last few weeks it's gone down to under $3 for a 9/10 gallon. The oil companies are in this for a profit, and they're not about to take a loss over this tax. They'll find a way to recoup the loss, and the consumer is going to be inevitably stuck with it.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
And it would be refuse to pump any oil out of the ground in California, but that's highly unlikely even if the prop passes. More likely consumer petrolium prices in Cali goes up marginaly untill the price of out-of-state crude and in-state crude reach an equilibrium (and maybe outside Cali as well). What I think the $64,000.00 question is, "If the state substitises research in alternative energy by private companies with the extraction tax, does the taxpayers own a portion of any patents created with that money?"
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
So, if CA oil costs more than TX oil, or Saudi oil, less will be sold.. I hope some proceeds of that tax are earmarked to support unemployed oil workers!
Or maybe some of that money will be used to create a California Oil mascot? Worked pretty well with them raisins!
It is to laugh.
Nope. The law forbids them from raising the prices in California to make up for said cost, so in reality the cost will be borne by oil users in all the US, not just CA. This actually subsidizes the cost for CA residents at the expense of everyone else, a smart move on their part.
Lets see, it's absolutely impossible to say what the cause of a price increase is, in absolute terms. So as long as the producer doesn't raise prices by an equivalent amount the day the law takes effect, then they're off scott free pretty much.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
The problem with this kind of legislation is that it is not a tax on the oil companies. In the end, it is a tax on their customers.
The wacko-enviro-lefties seem to always forget that a tax always has a negative economic impact. It sometimes has a positive benefit somewhere else in society, and that benefit may even outweigh its negative consequences.
So, what's so bad about a negative economic impact? Economics is not just about rich corporate CEOs, lawyers, politicians, venture capitalists, bankers, inside traders, hedge fund bandits, leveraged buyout raiders. It's about your job, and the corner drug store, and the bicycle shop, and the Internet, the church down the block, and your grandmother's pension, and your local PBS station. Economics is about everything in life. It's about how we survive, and thrive, and interact, and plan for the future, and pay for the mistakes of the past.
So, what's the big deal about this kind of tax? It's one group of economic units using the political process to raid the resources of another group of economic units for ideological, or economic, or political reasons. They funnel that money from one group, through the government, and to another group. And this is the ugly part: all governments are notoriously bad about handling your money.
Make no mistake. That is your money they are talking about. Not the oil companies' money.
I had forgotten how much cooler teenagers look when they are smoking. Oh, wait
Was this sarcasm, or a point?? Oil companies raise prices because they can, and because people are willing to pay it. There is no way to prove that someone raised the price to cover this cost. Gas prices at the pump don't go up because barrels of oil got more expensive last night, they go up because people raise the prices, because Joe down the street did first. People don't take buses or bikes to work because they can't, they take them because the cost difference isn't worth the inconvience factor.
Exxon and the others will find ways to pass this cost on. Anyone believing otherwise is naive, and anyone pushing a bill with such an unenforceable provision in it has ulterior motives in my book.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Umm.. yes?
In absolute terms, the richest 1% pay nearly 37% of all personal federal income tax. That same centile earned about 19%. They earned 19% yet paid 37%.
IMHO we should burden the poor with more taxes, since the more you tax something the less you get of it.
Tell me about it. I went through hell with the City, and some neighbors, to put a PV solar array on the roof of my house. Got it done through sheer perseverence. Person who bitched about the panels the most? My next door neighbor who is also always complaining to me about his $600 a month electricity bills in the summer.
After all, it runs on gasoline and thus creates demand for oil. Until vehicles are made to run on something besides fossil fuels the oil companies are simply supplying the demand that you and I require to keep the economy running. And yes, there are 'alternative fuels' but people who think that we can just directly switch over are totally ignorant of the required infrastructure it would take for this to happen. Moreover, if 'rising gas prices' are a concern, they aren't going to be too happy about paying MORE (yes, it will be more) for cutting-edge 'green'-powered cars.
Well, Bush is the worst president ever. I mean, the only person worse would be some crazy democrat like Hilary Clinton but with radically expanded, possibly unconstitutional powers... Oh wait...
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
Sure there will. The cost to produce the gas in California will go up, so the producers will move out of state where it's cheaper. Then, it'll cost more to get it here, so the price at the pump will go up. In the end, the price will go up because of this tax. They won't be passing the cost of the tax onto the consumer, they'll be passing the cost of getting the gas to the consumer onto the consumer. That cost could be more than the tax, but that doesn't matter, since they'll still be making more money.
But what will California end up with? Fewer jobs (they need people to run the production facilities) and higher gas prices. Awesome! Thanks so much for forcing the gas companies to pay for R&D in alternative fuels!
With gas prices on the way back down, this is the worst time to institute a gas tax.
well, we're talking about an imagined reality where no oil company does business in california. in that case, there would be enormous demand. I then proposed a new economic market which takes advantage of the fact that oil is a commodity good.
Firstly - I am in the UK where Gas costs about £1 a LITRE! People still drive and the roads are still gridlocked. The difference is that most people chose smaller cars and 'Chelsea Tractors' are more of a status symbol.
Secondly - we will never replace fossil fuels while distribution networks are run by companies who drill Oil.
Thats not to say market forces can not be used to the benefit the environment. Successive Brittish governments have been largely incompetent in almost everything they do.
This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
Vulture Capitalist
>You're asking the wrong question. Since only Californians are voting on this, the question is: why
:)
:)
>shouldn't Californians vote to subsidize 90% of their alternative energy funding with income from other states?
LOL, of course you are right. It is brilliant, after all, from their perspective anyway!
I believe I will contact my representatives and see if I can get similar legislation passed to help get subsidies for my mortgage, car payment, and utility bills, too!
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Ever wonder what the electricity bill must be like for most of those big silicon valley companies? Perhaps the oil companies should strike back by claiming that there needs to be an energy consumption tax penalty paid entirely by the companies doing the consuming.
The tech companies would STFU in a split second. They aren't conserving a damned thing and aren't interested in anything other than protecting their own interests, same as any other corporation.
There is a deep and bitter irony
On a per-passenger basis, do Branson's planes take up more petroleum, steel, etc. than a regular car as generally used (that is, one or perhaps two people in the car at the same time)?
I don't know whether it is, but without some facts, I'm not willing to accept on faith that air travel is worse for the environment than all other options. Admittedly, I'd be surprised as hell if planes had less impact than trains, but I don't know about cars.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Great idea. Make the poor pay another tax on top of the high price of gasoline.
My ass, Vinod Khosla admits that he'd most likely directly benefit from the prop, and he's the main backer.
This is probably the best write-up I've seen on the proposition.. by someone who likes most of the ideals of it, but dislikes the motives of those behind it and how it's being protrayed by them.
A quote from there:
Before the claims come out.. no that's not my blog, nor anyone I even know. I just found it while looking for info on the proposition awhile back (Yes, I like to actually be informed about what I'm voting on) and found it to be one of the best write ups with many links to where he gets his data.
- My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
Good idea. This will last until the water enviros get pissy about the fish having issues. That will kill your tidal and hydro-electric power. Your wind power will also fall when the bird lovers get upset about big fans harming the red cockcaded white tailed whatever. And solar power will probably get pretty far until you publish the square miles requred for each power plant to be useful. The wonderful desert foliage enviros will get really upset when they find out you will have to cover most of the Mojave with panels to produce your power. Of course nuclear is the spawn of the devil, everybody has known that since three mile island might have mabey killed somebody if the engineers had not done anything to stop it.
The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
I ride a bike too. I enjoy my lack of dependence on motor vehicles. In fact, I lord it over my peers whenever possible. A colleague was telling me just today that she spends £52 on petrol (gas) per week. So, I worked that out as £2,496 per annum just on petrol. There's also the price of the car, maintainance, taxes, insurance and whatever else. So say she's taking a £15,000 for the job, we can say that at least £3,000 of that is lost on just getting to work!
Going on my aproximation of £3,000 a year just for having your own car to get to work, that's £62.50 a week. My bicycle cost me £280 and has cost me a further £30 in various maintainance in the past year. And so my bike cost me £25 a week, and I'm still reaping the benefits in cost and in health.
How TF did this get moderated insightful? Did this person read the Prop 87 proposal at all?
Fact is, the Oil companies are ALREADY charging what the market will bear, so increases in the costs will not necessarily increase the cost of gas at the pump. Similar arguments can be had for other inelastic costs like monopoly software (Microsoft).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Tax a business, their costs increase, they pass that charge onto their customers.
The authors of this bill know that, and have included language in it that attempts to prohibit passing on the costs to the customers. Whether it will work or not, I have no idea, but your objection misses an important feature of the bill.
Edith Keeler Must Die
"Prop 87 would prohibit oil producers from passing along the cost of the tax to consumers at the pump."
Good luck with that.
An unenforceable requirement that goes contrary to any sensible economic principle.... uh, right.
I'm a Californian, and I'll be voting against this Proposition.
I'm all for more alternate energy, but if the statement above is an indication of the level of clear thinking present in the bill, it most be pretty awful...
until they are competitive with gas. That won't happen until gas becomes expensive. There needs to be a market for alternatives, at the moment there's no point because people will just continue with gas because it's cheaper.
I don't think it should be taxed mind you. Just add it to the cap and trade emissions system.
Deleted
I'm sure if the oil companies "declared war" on California by shutting off the flow of oil that "nationalization" would be a good counter-strike.
Nationalization of oil has tended not to work so well elsewhere because the CIA tends to go in and overthrow any government that attempts it (Kermit Roosevelt's work in Iran is a prime example). Chavez in Venezuela is the only one that seems to have pulled it off... so far.
What bill isn't self-motivated? Why would any idiot back a bill which did not benefit them in any way? That's oilman logic for you.
It's dishonest to charge the tax on the supply side, because voters will not be able to see how much the tax is costing them.
California already taxes about 50 cents a gallon (the third highest) . Shouldn't they already be funding alternative transportation with that money?
Actually, I already do - in NJ/PA anyway - I forget which one, I just moved. Point is, because it was classified as an SUV, my registration costs went up. So I'm already paying extra for the privledge, and although I fumed about it for a few seconds - mostly, of course, because I guarantee that extra wasn't going to go towards alternative-fuel research - I paid it, and will continue to pay it, because I use my SUV and the extra space to transport goods (own a small business).
Although, it's not like SUVs couldn't be more conservative themselves... gotta close that "work truck" loophole in fuel economy requirements.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
You CAN NOT keep the costs from being passed on to consumers!!! Thinking that the government can change economic laws is like thinking the government can change pi, or change gravity. All the language on all the peices of paper in the world cannot change fundamental properties of economics.
I listened to an interview with the author of this bill last week. When asked, "won't the tax on production just be passed on to consumers?", he replied "no it won't, because the law would prohibit that."
What fantasy world does this guy live in? The interview was full of either the worst economic ignorance, or the most shameless lies, I've heard in years. This guy was trying to convince us to believe in the government's magic pixie dust that when sprinkled on a problem would make it all go away.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Businesses never pay taxes. They just pass them on to consumers.
But the consumers pass them back on to business by purchasing less. In the end, taxes hurt everyone.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
The authors of that bill are idiots. I heard one of them on an interview last week, and his economic ignorance was disgusting.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Oil companies claim the backers of Prop 87, some of them venture capitalists, would profit from state money flowing into the alternative-energy projects they are funding.
There is nothing wrong with profiting as all the oil-companies can attest but for the record Vinod Khosla, the founder of Sun and major backer of Prop 87 has said that if any ethanol companies in which he invests profit from the proposition, he will donate the profits to charity. So it's not all self-serving as the oil companies would have you believe. (info is from today's WSJ).
remember the 70s?
Sure I do. What I remember was government price controls causing shortages, prompting government rationing creating even longer lines. I remember people getting tickets for trying to buy gas on the wrong day of the week.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I thought it was just another of my paranoid friends conspiracy theories but if you take a bit of time to look into it, you will see. Just google for http://www.google.com.au/search?q=cantarell+produc tion+down and see what I'm talking about. Those are mainstream reports, not Chicken Little nutjobs.
This tax oil scheme is another subtle effort to curve the problem without raisint too many eyebrows amongst the general population because many believe it would cause widespread panic. I know I hate the guy that told me about this because every time I see news like this I fear he might not be just some wacko doomsayer. So if I am a somewhat rational and mildly educated guy and hate the messenger, what would do the masses?
- The war on Irak was never properly explained. First it was WMD, then Saddass, then whatnot. Some say the truth is that the USA is fighting a resource war to secure one of the few oil reservoirs still worth something.
- The recent trends towards fascism within Amerika, Britain, France and some other developed countries seem to be in preparation to handle mass unrest in their populations. Why would they bother when everything seems so quiet? Apparently, because it won't be quiet for much longer; once the 'easy oil' runs out ther will *still* be oil around but it will be expensive to obtain and process and inflation might run rampant. Imagine having 15 or 20 dollar prices per gallon of gasoline, how would that affect the industry? Transport? Food production?
- The warnings against global warming and calls for carbon production are another related issue. Earth is in fact warming, but reducing pollution means less consumption of Oil and coal (which is not an endlessly renewable source either) and might push back the effects of the oil shortage long enough to develop alternatives.
- The call for development of alternative energy sources is getting stronger every year as more people realize that oil dependancy is unsustainable in a shorter term than previously believed.
So maybe its a good thing that they are trying to get the money to develop the stuff that might cushion the blow that we all know is comming (even if we can't agree on when)+Raider of the lost BBS
The authors of this bill know that, and have included language in it that attempts to prohibit passing on the costs to the customers. Whether it will work or not, I have no idea, but your objection misses an important feature of the bill.
So what you're saying is that this is a terrible bill, which I already knew. Costs get around. Even if the business can't pass them on to customers, they can always go bankrupt or leave the state. Someone will pay. You don't get something for nothing.Free money from taxpyers? Oh - the Oil Caompanies, you mean. I think they can afford it. And gas prices are rising regardless. The fact that some of the rising price will be spent on alternative fuel research is a plus. There is no gain without pain, even if it's only the pain of doing things a little different than before. Personally, I'd like to see some of that tax money spent on developing decent public transportation to the distant suburbs so they wouldn't have to drive so far everyday.
"The chances of either happening are ridiculously remote."
... NM.
Uh, have you looked at who is voting and for who lately? Oh wait, you're prolly one of them
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You got mod points on Slashdot? Who'da thunk it?
My book, podcast
Moreover, there are more people NOT paying any federal income tax at all... but that doesn't make good marketing for liberals, so a cross the board tax cut becomes "Tax cuts don't benefit the poor!"
Well... they weren't paying any to begin with, so I don't see how any kind of tax reform at all could benefit the poor...
Stupid sexy Flanders.