I know you have probably seen dozens of commercials and seen several arguments against it in print lately, but I see the handprints of the oil companies all over this. The ads state the fact that Prop 87 will increase oil tax by 4 billion dollars, but neatly skip the fact that its a tax on the oil companies and not the consumers. In fact, the law will tax only the oil companies, and will make it illegal for them to pass the cost to consumers. Don't be fooled! Fight back at the oil companies who have kept us Californians on the edge with THEIR outrageous gasoline prices! This is a chance to make them pay their 4 billion. In all other states were oil companies are forced to pay tax, the gas prices are lower.
2006-10-16 15:37:49 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
What I'm trying to say is, YES on 87! Help the enviroment and fight the monopolistic oil companies!
2006-10-16 15:38:43 · update #1
What I'm trying to say is, YES on 87! Help the enviroment and fight the monopolistic oil companies!
2006-10-16 15:38:49 · update #2
Oil companies might find a way around it, but if we find an alternate energy source, we can beat them out. Let's start now!
2006-10-16 15:46:14 · update #3
If Renewable Energy was directly economically viable, after the 2000 energy crisis in California ALL the new electric energy power plants would have been Renewable ones. Acknowledge the electric utilities are looking after their own selfish interests. They aren't stupid.
Neither party is willing to do what is necessary to change the economics of Renewable Energy. They are attempting to get those that can pay for their energy consumption 30+ years upfront to invest in Renewable Energy on their property. One of the problems with that, they are looking for a return ON their Investment not a return OF their investment.
To save the 1st worlds economy, a economically viable replacement for the dwindling supply of fossil fuels must by found. If Renewables can't pay for the infrastructure themselves, one must look at the size of the need, what the masses have shown they are willing to pay a premium for, to come up with a sellable spin-off benefit to subsidize installation.
They government has allowed the environmentalist to preach too long that Renewables are directly economically viable for investors to take the plunge. The government by their actions have to show/do the due diligence for the investors that a return of investment is both likely & backed by the government.
Today the only worst case than investing in Renewable Energy is for a lack of replacement of dwindling fossils. Without a replacement expect the economy of 1850 by 2050.
Personally I'm voting against 87. They oil companies will just buy their oil else where.
2006-10-16 16:07:00 · answer #1 · answered by viablerenewables 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I did, and to another questioner, the proposition will not allow Oil companies to pass the cost on to us consumers. Great question, and DEFINATELY, YES ON 87!!!
2006-10-16 22:57:46 · answer #2 · answered by greg j. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm glad you posted this. I didn't know that. I will have to read it closer. I was thinking it was weird that it is was so widely advertised. When I see advertisments everywhere, it's a major red flag for me. You know there is major bucks behind it. These type of deceptive ads should be illegal.
2006-10-16 22:56:00 · answer #3 · answered by Justin 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I sympathize, but do you really think the oil companies won't find a loophole?
2006-10-16 22:42:59 · answer #4 · answered by notme 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I like it.
2006-10-16 22:40:30 · answer #5 · answered by me 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋