Friday, October 20, 2006

yes on 87


prop 87, aka the clean alternative energy act, is a california ballot initiative that would tax oil drilling in the state, and use the money to reduce petroleum usage by funding initiatives promoting clean, alternative energy and increased efficiency. the measure, in the next 10 years, would put $4 billion toward reducing california’s dependence on oil by 25%. passage is by no means assured, as the opposition is incredibly well-funded, by guess who...

so, as we know, the negative ads alleging that prop 87 would raise gas prices are funded by the big oil companies, most notably chevron. so far, over $70 million has been put toward defeating prop 87! and the thing is, as our favorite green la girl, siel puts it:

"since when do oil companies care ’bout OUR pocketbooks?"

right on sister!

in their support of prop 87, grist has this to say about big oil and their efforts to defeat 87:

"How do you do justice to the century's worth of meddling that these folks have wrought on our planet? Let's just pick one issue -- say, the looming apocalypse of global warming. Most of the world would like to deal with the problem, so as to continue living. Big Oil, not so much, and so here we are.

Prop 87 represents the best opportunity you will likely ever see to get your licks in. Four billion bucks, right in the profit margin. If you let them keep it, they will just buy more Senators."

california has long been a leader in promoting a clean energy future. our most recent victories – the governor’s signing of our million solar roofs bill (sb 1) and the passage of the global warming solutions act of 2006 (ab 32) – are two excellent examples of california’s landmark initiatives pushing toward a true clean energy future.

so join the sierra club, the american lung association, bill clinton, al gore, richard branson, google founder larry page, and me :) to name a few, in voting yes on prop 87 to cement california's position as the most environmentally conscious us state and to send out a precedent for greater taxations on us energy giants.

No comments: