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