![[Valid Atom 1.0]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")
DISCUSSIONS * USA - CAL's Proposition 10
1· Fueling a cleaner California
Los Angeles,CAL,USA -The Los Angeles Times, by Fred Keeley -25 Sept 2008: -- The Times' Sept. 19 editorial, "Reject Proposition 10,” misses the mark on what the ballot measure would do for California and why it is necessary. Proposition 10 would authorize the state to sell $5 billion in bonds to finance alternative-energy projects -- a move that would bolster California's reputation as the nation's leader in investigating ways to clean up the environment... The Times makes the point that bonds are generally used for "bricks and mortar" programs rather than projects such as replacing fleets of diesel-fueled trucks because of the long-term aspects of bond issues. The founding idea behind the promotion of Proposition 10 is to begin the process of weaning Californians from gasoline and diesel fuel -- as much as 70% of which is imported from foreign sources -- to cleaner, cheaper, domestic sources of energy, one of which is natural gas... On the issue of state-issued rebates being a source of income for owners who may buy trucks in California then sell them in Nevada, the initiative states that a person seeking to obtain a vehicle rebate from the state Board of Equalization "shall submit proof of residency, proof of purchase or lease, proof that the vehicle is eligible for the rebate and proof of vehicle registration in California"... We would expect that the Air Resources Board, under its mandate to administer this program, might issue additional requirements such as installing a GPS system to track a truck's location, which would be consistent with the letter and spirit of the measure... Moreover, Proposition 10 is not a boondoggle for billionaire T. Boone Pickens or any one person or company. It is a pathway to the future of cleaner technologies to power trucks, buses and automobiles in California. The Times should be supporting that goal, not engaging in ad hominem attacks against one person...
2 · Why Prop. 10 is a boondoggle
San Francisco,CAL,USA -The San Francisco Chronicle -September 25, 2008: -- If timing is everything in politics, then Proposition 10 would seem to be a surefire winner. It would funnel $5 billion in state bond money into subsidies for clean-and-green energy alternatives with $3 billion of the total going to subsidies to boost natural gas as a road fuel... But wait: The chief backer and bill payer for the measure is T. Boone Pickens, the folksy Texas oilman and apostle for energy independence who founded a firm that just happens to supply natural gas for cars and trucks... If the foul scent of self-interest doesn't sink Prop. 10, its specifics should. The bulk of the bond proceeds would be doled out as subsidies for vehicle buyers. A high-mileage, gas-burning hybrid would mean a $2,000 subsidy for a buyer, even though these cars are already selling briskly. The measure would sweeten the deal to $10,000 for a car powered by natural gas and up to $50,000 for a long-haul truck... These may sound like smart inducements. But why single out natural gas for special favors when other technologies are in their infancy? These fields are drawing private investors who haven't asked for a Pickens-sized bond measure... But Prop. 10 couldn't even win a free pass for good intentions. It's opposed by an A-to-Z list of ballot-savvy organizations including the anti-tax Howard Jarvis group, California Chamber of Commerce, Sierra Club and the California Labor Federation. On the other side: Pickens and his checkbook... California needs low-polluting alternative fuels in its future. But voters shouldn't be misled to think this measure is a balanced answer. Vote no on Proposition 10...
Labels: discussions trucks subsidising
posted by Unknown @ 5:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home