THE State of California Thread (merged)

SILENTTODD

Don’t waste time considering anything this boob (California Attorney General Bill Lockyer) has to say. He’s not even going to be in office come January 2007. Not everyone in California is a moron; they seem to be equally scattered through out the world.
_________________
Skeptical scrutiny in both Science and Religion is the means by which deep thoughts are winnowed from deep nonsense-Carl Sagan

emersonbiggins

Reap what you've sown, Cali. Twisted Evil

_________________
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin

TommyJefferson

oowolf

Then we can sue the oil corporations over oil depletion; then the Weather Service for causing hurricanes and drought; then chicken farmers for causing bird flu. It's SO embarrasing to be a member of this species. (bangs head against wall)

Fergus · Heavy Crude Joined: Jun 13, 2006 Posts: 409

emailking · Intermediate Crude Joined: Mar 11, 2006 Posts: 749

Doly · Expert Joined: Dec 03, 2004 Posts: 4034

I don't think that lawsuit could go anywhere, but in the book "Half Gone" was mentioned a possible lawsuit that might work. Suppose you are a shareholder of an insurance company. Suppose the company was insuring property in an area likely to be affected by climate change, ie prone to hurricanes, floods, etc. You could put a lawsuit after some natural disaster saying the company did not protect the shareholders from the increasing risk posed by global warming.

IslandCrow

I too doubt that the State of California will win this court case. but then it took quite a long time before the tobacco industry lost its fight re the effect of smoking on lung cancer etc. I think that the State of California can be accused of being complicant in the whole matter...Who authorises all those roads to be built? They should be in the dock as well!

I suppose my only hope of what this case might do is to nudge the car makers into producing small, less fuel consuming, less polluting cars. If it does that then well done California.
_________________
We should teach our children the 4-Rs: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Rejoice.

JustinFrankl · Intermediate Crude Joined: Aug 22, 2005 Posts: 657

veliger

emersonbiggins

coyote · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:46 pm Post subject: THE State of California Thread

Hello all, I have a question for you: what do you think of California's Prop 87, due at the ballot in November? The ad campaigns have been flying here, and since it's to do with energy, it's naturally an issue that concerns me.

It's called the Clean Alternative Energy Act (CAEA). Basically, the proposition will institute a new drilling tax in California, up to 6% (depending on the current market value of crude). This could provide up to $4 billion in revenue over ten years, at which point the tax would end (I think – they're a little vague on this point). The proceeds would be used to pay for research and ventures into alternative energy, and provide consumer incentives for purchasing alternative energy vehicles. Proponents say the measure will curb petroleum consumption in California by up to 25%, help in the fight against global warming, and trend-set (to coin a verb) the economy into a new direction.

Sounds great – but won't the oil companies simply pass the cost of the tax on to consumers, so that we have to pay for it at the pump? Well, supposedly the bill contains provisions forbidding the oil companies from passing forward the cost, which naturally begs the question: how the heck do you enforce something like that? Opponents say that this measure would simply encourage Californian refineries to buy more foreign oil, which would not be subject to the tax increase. So, we've increased our reliance on foreign oil, the revenues won't be what we were hoping for, and all we will have done is create some new bureaucracy and drive businesses out of California while we're at it.

I have to admit, I have so far been unable to come to a decision about this one. On the one hand, I find it hard to believe that this bill will be very effective. Costs will be passed on to consumers, and drive more purchases of foreign oil. Also, I'm just not into all the blame-the-oil-companies rhetoric. (Though California may be a special case. Are the oil companies gouging us here in California? After all, California is third largest oil producer in the country, yet we pay the second to highest prices at the pump, after only Hawaii. This is despite the fact that we currently have no drilling tax, even though Alaska, Louisiana and even Texas all do.) And new bureaucracy is the last thing we need.

On the other hand, it does seem silly that California is the only major oil-producing state without such a tax. And generally speaking, this measure is exactly the kind of thing I've said I support: using taxes from oil companies to fund research into alternative energies. It's tempting to vote for the measure, as silly as it seems, just to make a statement: that we need to be doing something. And would it really be such a bad thing if gasoline prices at the pump were to increase some? It's not like we're paying what the stuff is worth.

Which leads me to my strongest feeling about the measure, at least for now. In the end, the thing that might lead me to vote for Prop 87 is, strangely, an argument from its opponents: that this bill may cause the pumping of less California oil. That leaves more for us later. A uniquely peak-oil perspective.

But I haven't decided yet. If Prop 87 passes in California, we may see more legislation in this direction in other parts of the country. What do you all think? Is this a direction we should be going?

http://yeson87.3cdn.net/01b1e2579a7116dd60_zl3m6xfpy.pdf
http://www.votecircle.com/proposition.php?id=87
http://www.yeson87.org/
http://www.nooiltax.com/
_________________
"If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst." — Thomas Hardy

NEOPO · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:18 pm Post subject: Re: California's Prop 87

I think capitolism will soon find itself looking at communism like an old friend Wink

_________________
It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.

SILENTTODD · Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:59 pm Post subject: Re: California's Prop 87

Coyote, I’m assuming you’re a fellow Californian too from your location “East of Eden’ (I read Steinbeck also!) I’m divided on this too. I have not received my voter pamphlet yet which gives the whole proposition (I’m one of those people who actually read all that). I don’t own a TV (which is why I have the time to read all that! And am immune to TV propaganda). My first impression is in California all Taxes end up in the general fund, which means they are not used for the purpose people thought they were voting for. This proposition establishes an extra bureaucracy we absolutely don’t need! (Why can’t Arnold and the Legislature just say we are going to devote this much $ towards wind generation this year and the next?)
The only Commission in California that actually worked well was the “Coastal Commission”, and the only one I can remember ever voting for back in the 70’s.
Until something in the voter pamphlet convinces me otherwise, I’m voting No.
_________________
Skeptical scrutiny in both Science and Religion is the means by which deep thoughts are winnowed from deep nonsense-Carl Sagan

grillzilla · Tar Sands Joined: Mar 15, 2006 Posts: 78

I recommed all Californians to read Robert Rapiers essay on Prop 87 which he posted over at the Oil Drum:

TheOilDrum

this was posted September 12th.

I work for a small oil producer in California, and personally I find the prop a little nuts. From my end what I see happening is that the lower producing wells, with high lift costs will be abandoned sooner under this plan than they ordinarily would be. There are an awful lot of marginal wells in California.. 3bbl a day or so an extra few bucks of lift cost will slowly do these wells in as repairs become necessary. Especially with the rise in service company costs recently.
_________________
The difference between Genius and Stupidity is that Genius has its limits.