Good Morning

Good Morning everybody!

Today is a very special day where we exercise our constitutional right to VOTE.

So get out there and do it.

I will have results, as they comes in, through out the day.

If you haven’t yet, and need help with environmental propositions or candidate positions please go HERE.

tomorrow is the day

After the 2000 debacle, I am always hesitant to say this, but… tomorrow we will know who our new president is and the results of the individual propositions.

I have spent the time researching the issues that concern the environment and I hope they have been of help to you. Please go to the “Election 2008″ category (on the right) for a full write up of each ballot measure, as well as links to the different positions of all the candidates.

I look forward to reporting the news as it comes in tomorrow.

Please get out and VOTE.

California Propostion 10

This is the final ballot measure having something to do with the environment. Tomorrow, I will post a summary of the ballot measures. But remember, you can go to the link on the right hand side of the screen labeled “Election 2008″ and get all the information you need about ballot measures and candidates.

Proposition 10: California Alternative Fuels Inititative

It sets up a rebate program to give money back to people who purchase vehicles that are powered by fuel sources other than regular gasoline, as well as a rebate for people who buy fuel-saving vehicles (like the Toyota Prius). The state government would pay for the rebates, up to a total of $5 billion.

The initiative authorizes $5 billion in bonds paid from state’s General Fund, allocated approximately as follows:

* 58% in cash payments of between $2,000 and $50,000 to purchasers of certain high fuel economy and alternative fuel vehicles;
* 20% in incentives for research, development and production of renewable energy technology;
* 11% in incentives for research and development of alternative fuel vehicle technology;
* 5% in incentives for purchase of renewable energy technology;
* 4% in grants to eight cities for education about these technologies; and
* 3% in grants to colleges to train students in these technologies.

Argument FOR:
– The funding it provides will allow the generation of electricity from renewable sources, and provide consumer rebates for the purchase or lease of “clean alternative fuel vehicles”.
– The funding will allow the replacement of “older polluting diesel trucks with clean alternative fuel trucks” and provide for research into alternative fuels.
– The programs funded by Prop. 10 will help reduce dependence on foreign fuel produced by “hostile foreign governments.”
– The diesel trucks that could be replaced produce dangerous pollution.
– Alternatives to high-priced gasoline are important

Argument AGAINST:
– Would require taking $10 billion out of the state’s general fund over a 30 year period at a time when the state is already in debt.
– Average consumers would not benefit from the rebate created by Proposition 10 that goes to those who buy vehicles that run on non-petroleum based fuels; instead, critics say, the main beneficiaries of the rebate would be “companies that have large vehicle fleets.”
– There are relatively few mechanics who know how to fix natural-gas engines and few filling stations offer natural gas.
– The proposition was initiated by one person/interest group and as such lacks the vetting that would have come had it gained input from a wider variety of sources. Shames says, “A well-intentioned individual with an excessive amount of money doesn’t necessarily have the capacity to present a comprehensive policy initiative on a complex topic.”

Recommendation: NO

It comes down to this… natural gas vehicles can provide a moderate reduction in pollution contributing to global warming. But this measure is not worth the cost to the state. It legislates a market for natural gas, therefore adding pressure to drill, while diverting funds and research from other alternatives. It is no surprise that the major investor in the “yes” campaign, has the most to profit from such a move; T. Boone Pickens.

link to the website in FAVOR
link to the website in OPPOSITION

Maine Bonds for Water Project, Question 3

Bonds for Water Project:

“Do you favor a $3.4 million bond issue to support drinking water programs, to support the construction of wastewater treatment facilities and to leverage $17 million in other funds?”

If passed, the measure would:

* Fund the state’s revolving loan fund that communities can apply to for low-interest loans.
* Stipulate that every $1 of state money raised will attract $5 in federal money, according to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Argument FOR:
- The $40.5 million the state has spent since 1988 from the clean water and drinking water revolving funds have leveraged $201 million in federal funds

This is interesting in that this question, so far, has no organized opposition.

My recommendation: YES

It is so hard to judge some of these out of state ballot issues. I am interpreting the supporting argument to mean that everyone feels there is a strong return on investment for the financial output. There seems to be no opposition since the other ballot measures are garnering most of the attention. The governor, a senator and a congressperson support this measure.

There are no websites for either side.

Colorado Amendment 58

Anyone who knows me knows this occupies the smallest of special places in my heart. I mean, come on…. Amendment 58 involving the environment. It’s like it’s destiny….

So here goes. Let’s hope I can do it justice.

Amendment 58: Scholarship Initiative Fund

It will end a 30 year tax subsidy only allowed to big oil and gas companies. It increases the amount of severance taxes paid by oil and natural gas companies and put this money towards college scholarships for state residents, renewable energy projects, transportation projects, water treatment grants, and wildlife habitat.

If passed it would:
– End property-tax deductions for the oil and gas industry that allow producers to take a credit of up to 87.5% of the prior year’s property tax liability from their severance taxes
– Direct the new revenues as follows:
o 60% to the Colorado Promise Scholarship Fund
o 15% for local impact of the oil and gas industry on transportation and water quality
o 15% for wildlife habitat
o 10% to clean energy projects.

Bottom line, for the last 30 years, $300 million dollars of taxpayers money has been, effectively, handed over to big oil and gas companies. This is a chance to invest that money in scholarship programs, renewable energy and land preservation.

Argument FOR:
– It ends a tax subsidy given to big oil companies, and instead uses that money for scholarships, renewable energy, and preservation.
– It will maintain energy cost to consumer at one of the lowest rates in the region
– It does not increase taxes, it makes oil companies pay taxes.
– economists report that there will no effect on gas and oil prices.

Argument AGAINST:
– will not solve higher education issues and the requirements for the scholarships will not be met by the target group of low and middle income families.
– claims there is a tax increase, as well as, a increase in gas and oil prices.
– “If Colorado policymakers want to pursue a sound energy policy, they ought to keep taxes low and reduce government interference in the markets that are capable of delivering innovative energy solutions to consumers. Attempts to punish successful industries and redirect money to programs favored by politicians have failed to solve our energy problems in the past, and there’s no reason to think this effort will be any different.”

My recommendation: YES

There is a lot of money being dumped into negative ads by the oil and gas industry. They want to serve their best interest by retaining the $300 million they get every year. From what I have read, which includes the plethora of supporters on this amendment, from the Governor to all of the environmental organizations to most of the major newspapers, I think it is safe to conclude that this should pass.

There is a website in FAVOR of the amendment.
There is no website for the opposition.

Rhode Island Question 1 and 2

Can anyone out there help me on this one? I cannot get much information, at all.

Question 1 and 2: Transportation and Open Spaces Bonds

Question 1:
– Authorize the Rhode Island state government to borrow $87,215,000.
– With the money, provide funds to the Department of Transportation to match available federal funds and to provide direct funding for improvements to the State’s highways, roads and bridges.
– Match available federal funds and to provide direct funding for commuter rail.
– Purchase new buses and/or rehabilitate existing buses in the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority’s bus fleet.

Question 2:
– Authorize the Rhode Island state government to borrow $2,500,000.
– With the money, provide funds to “purchase, or otherwise permanently protect through the purchase of title to, development rights, conservation easements and public recreation easements, greenways and other open space, recreation lands, agriculture lands, forested lands and state parks.”

My recommendation: ???

I’m sorry but I just don’t want to make a recommendation without more information. I cannot find anything about who supports or opposes this, what the true costs are, how it will be implemented, etc., etc.

Unless someone out there has some more information….? please.