Posted on 07/24/2006 11:20:29 AM PDT by calcowgirl
The Proposition 87 campaign is shaping up into a big bucks battle between big oil companies and "no oil" investors and environmentalists.
Chevron and other major energy producers are fueling the drive to defeat the November ballot measure that would impose a severance tax on California oil production to pay for alternative energy.
Venture capitalists with multimillion-dollar investments in "greentech," meanwhile, have joined forces with environmentalists to finance the campaign to create the $4 billion fund for alternative energy.
Proposition 87 would impose a tax on California oil producers of 1.5 percent to 6 percent, depending on the per-barrel price of oil. The tax would produce up to $4 billion to provide loans, grants and incentives to buy alternative-fuel vehicles, develop new forms of energy, train workers in the field and educate the public about alternative energy.
The "No on 87" campaign is far ahead in fundraising, having collected more than $10.5 million, almost all of it from the oil and gas industry.
The "Yes on 87" campaign has collected nearly $4.8 million, with most of the money coming from venture capitalists or environmentalists.
---
The state's three largest oil producers -- Chevron, Aera Energy LLP and Occidental Petroleum Corp. -- have donated more than $9.1 million of more than $10.5 million collected so far.
---
On the other side, the top three contributors are venture capitalists who have significant investments in alternative energy and an environmentalist. Together, they've donated nearly $3 million of the $4.8 million collected so far.
Vinod Khosla . . . Kleiner Perkins . . . more than $1.1 million . . .
John Doerr . . . Kleiner Perkins . . . $950,000.
It's also picking up significant contributions and leadership from environmental activists. Most notable is campaign co-chairman Stephen L. Bing.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
NO on 87
http://www.nooiltax.com
YES on 87
http://www.yeson87.org
Haven't they figured it out? It's just passed to consumers.
Yes. But in the process, a good amount flows to venture capitalists investing in "greentech."
The state of California is the new Venture Capitalist piggy bank, enabled by the initative process.
.
This will cause the closing of marginal fields and preclude the investment required for new drilling or rehabilitation.
Total tax on gasoline in California is $.50/gal. This tax is exceeded by only two other states, Hawaii and Nevada.
yitbos
Let me think...
Create a huge new welfare bureaucracy under the guise of "alternative energy" and the "innocent sounding" "subsidies"?
Or allow market forces once more to find the most profitable alternatives with no government interference?
Ummmmmm. Let me think. Ummmmm.
I'll get back to you!
California did just fine a few years back without electricity, I imagine they don't really need fuel either.
Yes, the taxpayers as always are being asked to "authorize" a new tax (surprise, surprise), to go along with increasing their price for EITHER of the energy supplies, i.e., oil or greenie-fuel.
No magic here; just as the energy companies for ALL types of energy now OWN the politicians, and compete for tax dollars through Lobbyists, then pass any costs on to their consumers, so we have yet another effort to effectively raise their prices AND get taxdollars, too.
This lobbyist/taxpayer/consumer enterprise has become "the American Way" of doing business......WAKE UP AMERICA....
I might support an additional tax on oil, as long as that oil is produced from drilling off California's shore. Perhaps the state could consider offshore drilling leases, with the proceeds going to fund alternative energy. Perhaps the state could just ask for a general increase in the sales tax, so the burden could be shared among the population. The reason they want to tax oil companies is that they have been demonized by the Democrats for so long that they appear a natural target.
I think the oil companies should cut production as necessary to shield themselves from this unfair behavior. The oil will still be in the ground when the corrupt politicians get the message.
There is no need for alternat forms of energy.
Remove all the subsidies and we won't have to hear about that trash any more.
In a market like crude oil, price of product is based upon supply and demand, not cost plus expenses. If oil sells for $70 a barrel, it doesn't mater if it cost you $10 to bring it to market or $50. Nobody will pay more because the producer paid more. The commodity is fungible.
What taxes like this do is encourage producers to invest their capital somewhere else like Russia. There they can make more money from their investment. But then the US doesn't get the taxes and royalty payments.
By the time big oil pours millions of dollars into this campaign, the voters will think yes is no and no is yes. This measure has no chance of passing.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't work. If oil companies could charge any price regardless of demand, 1998~99 oil prices would never have happened.
Problem solved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.