Robert, I compliment you on how "fair and balanced" you have been in this debate, I wish the broader political landscape could have this depth of discourse with the courtesy you display.
CaliforniaConservative.org
· 3 years ago
As we gear up to give our recommendations for the upcoming election, we are definitely going to highlight this essay.
Excellent analysis. Not just because we agree and stand against Prop. 87, but because you have addressed this issue with intellectual rigor and fairness.
As the prior commentor observed, we also "wish" more of politics would find this "depth of discourse." However, the problem is that the 'average voter' doesn't read as deeply or critically evaluate the election decisions.
Do people value the liberty for which our forefathers died by really taking seriously the privilege to vote as afforded by our democracy?
To put a spin on Chevron's old ad slogan: People don't.
Eli Gal
· 3 years ago
I agree with your prediction that propoistion 87 will pass by all the "do good" and minded people of California. "Punishing" the oil companies for outragous profits in just an icing on the cake. Most of California's oil fiels are dwindling and requiring investments, such as EOR, to allow them to continue to operate. With proposition 87 such investments are less likely. With less domestic supply and higher demand for foriegn oil, the price of oil will rise and our dependency on foriegn oil will increase was well. The reduction in consumption of oil need to come from "sin tax". Taxing gas at the pump with as much as $2-3 per gallon in a tax neutral scheme would reduce consumption, lower the price of crude oil and would keep our planet cleaner. Finally, a prediction of my own. Nothing good will come out of the billions collected by proposition 87. It will be money wasted on useless work. There is a lot more private money, some was raised by Khosla, chasing good ideas and renewable energy projects than there good ideas to go around.
In Palo Alto
· 3 years ago
Thank you for writing your thoughts. I have followed the debate vs. Vinod and find myself agreeing with you more than Vinod. I hope you are not disheartened by froth/hate-mail - - you are doing a great job at educating the rest of us on a critical debate that impacts the future of all of us.
adrian
· 3 years ago
yep, the $4 billion will be completely wasted. as a matter of fact, we should rely on private money for everything, including pharma basic science research. That would certainly leave me with extra dollars in my pocket! no?
William Jolitz
· 3 years ago
How naive. Do the research. California is the only oil producing state that DOESN'T tax oil companies for pumping the stuff out of the ground or beneath the water!
Why can't we do a tax like Louisiana or Texas or Alaska, and put it to good use. How ironic that California is more conservative on taxes than Louisiana, Texas, and Alaska.
Oil isn't forever - why don't we start thinking about our kids for once?
Robert Rapier
· 3 years ago
I have done the research, Bill. It would appear that you are the one being naïve. In fact, I specifically discussed the tax situation in this essay. Did you read it before commenting? I have gone into more detail on the tax situation in this essay on my blog. What you have done is take a single tax, out of many, and used that to declare that “California is more conservative on taxes than Louisiana, Texas, and Alaska.†Sorry, but that’s just not correct. Here is what three of your own newspapers – of the many who have endorsed a “No†vote on 87 – have written about the tax issue.
From an Oakland Tribune editorial on 10-25-06:
Right now, California's tax rate for oil is in about the middle among oil-producing states. The new tax proposed by Proposition 87 could make our tax the highest in the nation and force some smaller oil companies to cap their wells, reducing the 630,000 barrels a day we produce.
From a San Francisco Chronicle editorial on 10-9-06:
The seemingly nonstop succession of pro-87 television ads presents the measure as a matter of fairness: Unlike most oil-producing states, California does not impose a severance tax on the extraction of oil. The claim is accurate, but missing context. The tax burden on oil producers here in this state is comparable to others when income, property, sales and other taxes are added.
How about the L.A. Times on 9-26-06:
Proposition 87's backers are equally disingenuous in suggesting that oil companies are getting a free ride in California, given the absence of an extraction tax. Oil companies are hardly undertaxed here; most states that have extraction taxes don't charge California's steep corporate income taxes.
Furthermore, neither is your statement California is not the only oil-producing state without an extraction tax. It seems you have been sipping the Kool-Aid, and failing to do your own research.
About the only thing you did get correct was your statement that oil won’t last forever. That’s true, which is why I have spent many years (and continue to do wo) working on and promoting alternatives. You read that part too, right? Or did you simply read the title, and decide to grace us all with your wisdom? Again, I am not suggesting that voters should vote no, but they should certainly be more informed that you seem to be.
Cheers,
Robert Rapier
Lin Khoo
· 3 years ago
I agree with your argument Robert, and thoroughly enjoy your discourse with Khosla on these matters. The key thing about Prop 87 to me is not that it will raise gas prices (of course, it will, that's the whole point!), nor is it meant as a "punishment" to oil companies, but the KEY to Prop 87 is the fact that it will place economic pressure on consumers to use less and thus, push for more innovation and development in alternative, renewable energies.
If you survey all countries in the world, there is a clear and obvious correlation, with almost no exception, between high energy prices and the level of technological advancement in a country. Many countries with rock-bottom gas prices (Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, etc.) also have some of the lowest living standards.
Daniel
· 3 years ago
Instead of letting some new government beauracracy pick winners and losers, the most effective solution to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels is to institute a carbon tax and let the market pick winners and losers.
William Jolitz
· 3 years ago
Bob, I'm flattered by the honor you do me of directing the ideological noise machine at me. Yes, I read the papers.
I feel your pain. If you don't deliver the votes, you might become superfluious, as another will fill your seat. You might win this time, but in the long run, the free ride will come to an end.
Yes, you can channel the anti-tax cause, because most don't know what a carefully fine grain job the oil companies do of market pricing, such that they can determine the price flexibility at any point in their distribution network. Nor do they have access to financial reports, which show an astonishing ability to bear a tax, and yet sill have massive profits.
Truely, I do understand the inability of a public corporation to afford to invest heavily in long term energy technology change that doesn't bring with it dependable short term profitability so necessary to maintain dominance. So much so, that we even have to consider forcing change with a proposition, because of the entrenched greed affords no other alternative - even for collective good.
30 years of occasional involvement with oil company executives I know is hardly naive of the business. Yet it is naive to presume that all taxes are injurious. Personally, I don't think many taxes are effective. But with energy monopoly, they are the only game for change.
The irony of this is that in the end, the oil companies may be the ones that profit most off of such a tax. For they are still dominate in the energy sector, meaning that they still will be the foremost acquirer of developed new energy resources, if for no other reason than diversification.
The market cannot pick winners and losers if its window is a few years. You need something else to shift the industry base. Only subsidies, with all their downsides, can provide alternatives to blind monopoly. Look at what happened to american car makers - there's what will happen to the oil industry, if only left to market forces. We've been down that road before.
And as to loss from government, narrowly focussed big industry also digs huge financial holes. We need thousands of start-ups here, and this seems like the best way to get them.
Jon Stewart Fan
· 3 years ago
I support a gas tax, but you're right Mr. Rapier the marketing for this campaign is super shady. It'd be nice if we could have favourable policies enacted with transparency and facts. But the oil industry is hardly a weak opponent for a lobby initiative. I'm not sure if I can really blame Khosla for resorting to the almighty Spin machine to beat them. But he's certainly not being straight with us.
And Mr. Jolitz, do yourself a favour and stop digging. The hole is big enough as it is.
El.presdiente
· 3 years ago
I can't believe this is really still an issue. We are one of 2 countries not signed on the Kyoto treaty, and CA has made some good strides lately inspite of government policies. The issue is not oil prices in the short term, it is that of the long term. If we dont start getting alternative energies, we WILL be spending more in the near future as oil prices will continue to climb. Investments into new industries will generate thousands of new jobs and pump the economy. The gains of alternative energy are far greater than the possibility of increased gas prices (which according to the law may not be passed to consumers in any way, shape or form. If they could pass it on, why spend $100 mil+ from oil companies to defeat it?). Global warming is a far greater issue than the even debated $0.05 increaase of CA gas prices compared to the Nation.
assasain
· 3 years ago
El.presdiente 11.8.06 | 12:17 am "...(which according to the law may not be passed to consumers in any way, shape or form..."
Reading comprehension please! it isnt being passed on, prices will go up because of myriad other factors. Those factors do not equate to "passing on."
assasain
· 3 years ago
i do believe in alternative energy though and did vote for 87!! and i do think that the likely increases in gas prices will spur consumer conservation. (...although i did detect just a hint of sarcasm in Mr. Rapier's "Predictions."
All Comments
I compliment you on how "fair and balanced" you have been in this debate, I wish the broader political landscape could have this depth of discourse with the courtesy you display.
Excellent analysis. Not just because we agree and stand against Prop. 87, but because you have addressed this issue with intellectual rigor and fairness.
As the prior commentor observed, we also "wish" more of politics would find this "depth of discourse." However, the problem is that the 'average voter' doesn't read as deeply or critically evaluate the election decisions.
Do people value the liberty for which our forefathers died by really taking seriously the privilege to vote as afforded by our democracy?
To put a spin on Chevron's old ad slogan: People don't.
Most of California's oil fiels are dwindling and requiring investments, such as EOR, to allow them to continue to operate. With proposition 87 such investments are less likely. With less domestic supply and higher demand for foriegn oil, the price of oil will rise and our dependency on foriegn oil will increase was well.
The reduction in consumption of oil need to come from "sin tax". Taxing gas at the pump with as much as $2-3 per gallon in a tax neutral scheme would reduce consumption, lower the price of crude oil and would keep our planet cleaner.
Finally, a prediction of my own. Nothing good will come out of the billions collected by proposition 87. It will be money wasted on useless work. There is a lot more private money, some was raised by Khosla, chasing good ideas and renewable energy projects than there good ideas to go around.
Why can't we do a tax like Louisiana or Texas or Alaska, and put it to good use. How ironic that California is more conservative on taxes than Louisiana, Texas, and Alaska.
Oil isn't forever - why don't we start thinking about our kids for once?
From an Oakland Tribune editorial on 10-25-06:
From a San Francisco Chronicle editorial on 10-9-06:
How about the L.A. Times on 9-26-06:
Furthermore, neither is your statement California is not the only oil-producing state without an extraction tax. It seems you have been sipping the Kool-Aid, and failing to do your own research.
About the only thing you did get correct was your statement that oil won’t last forever. That’s true, which is why I have spent many years (and continue to do wo) working on and promoting alternatives. You read that part too, right? Or did you simply read the title, and decide to grace us all with your wisdom? Again, I am not suggesting that voters should vote no, but they should certainly be more informed that you seem to be.
Cheers,
Robert Rapier
If you survey all countries in the world, there is a clear and obvious correlation, with almost no exception, between high energy prices and the level of technological advancement in a country. Many countries with rock-bottom gas prices (Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, etc.) also have some of the lowest living standards.
I feel your pain. If you don't deliver the votes, you might become superfluious, as another will fill your seat. You might win this time, but in the long run, the free ride will come to an end.
Yes, you can channel the anti-tax cause, because most don't know what a carefully fine grain job the oil companies do of market pricing, such that they can determine the price flexibility at any point in their distribution network. Nor do they have access to financial reports, which show an astonishing ability to bear a tax, and yet sill have massive profits.
Truely, I do understand the inability of a public corporation to afford to invest heavily in long term energy technology change that doesn't bring with it dependable short term profitability so necessary to maintain dominance. So much so, that we even have to consider forcing change with a proposition, because of the entrenched greed affords no other alternative - even for collective good.
30 years of occasional involvement with oil company executives I know is hardly naive of the business. Yet it is naive to presume that all taxes are injurious. Personally, I don't think many taxes are effective. But with energy monopoly, they are the only game for change.
The irony of this is that in the end, the oil companies may be the ones that profit most off of such a tax. For they are still dominate in the energy sector, meaning that they still will be the foremost acquirer of developed new energy resources, if for no other reason than diversification.
The market cannot pick winners and losers if its window is a few years. You need something else to shift the industry base. Only subsidies, with all their downsides, can provide alternatives to blind monopoly. Look at what happened to american car makers - there's what will happen to the oil industry, if only left to market forces. We've been down that road before.
And as to loss from government, narrowly focussed big industry also digs huge financial holes. We need thousands of start-ups here, and this seems like the best way to get them.
And Mr. Jolitz, do yourself a favour and stop digging. The hole is big enough as it is.
"...(which according to the law may not be passed to consumers in any way, shape or form..."
Reading comprehension please! it isnt being passed on, prices will go up because of myriad other factors. Those factors do not equate to "passing on."