Thursday, October 9, 2008

No on Prop 10

Sierra Club California was joined by Consumer Federation of California, California Federation of Teachers, California Taxpayers Association, and Silicon Valley Leadership Group in a press conference against Proposition 10. Please find a press release from Sierra Club California below.

October 8, 2008

EVENT: Launch of No on 10 "Coalition of Everyone" Campaign
WHEN: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, October 9, 2008
WHERE: West Steps of the State Capitol, Sacramento

Proposition 10: A $5 Billion Boondoggle
Sierra Club Chooses Five Reasons To Oppose Poorly Planned Proposition

California's forward-thinking voters want alternative-fueled vehicles on the road, polls show.

But there are at least five reasons California's major environmental group rejects Proposition 10, an expensive, unwieldy initiative that would get our state on the wrong road to the vehicles of the future.

"Proposition 10 promises little bang for five billion bucks," said Jim Metropulos, Sierra Club California's Senior Advocate. "California cannot afford to waste money and time on technologies that won't address global warming or promote clean air We want to see much cleaner alternatives to the cars and trucks we're driving now."

Five Reasons Sierra Club Opposes Proposition 10:

1. Proposition 10 defines natural gas as a "clean fuel," a favored
position equivalent or superior to renewable energy sources that emit little or no air pollution or greenhouse gases. Burning natural gas produces more than 80 million metric tons of greenhouse gas, according to California Air Resources Board estimates. We worry that defining natural gas as a clean fuel could lead to increased use of that fossil fuel.

2. Proposition 10 sets a low bar for other alternative fuels. "No
dirtier than gasoline" isn't a standard to shout about from the rooftops - let alone to spark the next "Manhattan Project."

3. Proposition 10's support for clean-fuel trucks is heartening to
hear, but Sierra Club wants a more focused program that devoted all of its funds for the purpose could have converted 10 times the number of diesel trucks to clean fuels, and achieved major improvements in clean air.

4. The biggest beneficiaries of this measure - besides its sponsor,
Clean Energy Fuels Corp. - would be bond investors. Passing Proposition 10 would require $5 billion to support the program would be borrowed through issuing bonds, and most of this would be distributed as rebates to buyers of "clean alternative vehicles." Repayment of the bonds is not supported by any revenue stream created by the initiative would cost the state $9.8 billion.

5. Proposition 10 calls hydroelectric power a "renewable" source of
energy. Sierra Club worries these references could lead to more environmentally damaging large dams being built in our state.

1 comment:

fireofenergy said...

I agree. Sounds like too much money to line the pockets of enviromaniacs to me. I'm am VERY surprised that SC of California is against that.

They are against 7 which is for (basicly) unlimited clean energy! Vote Yes on 7 because, in order to meet such requirements, the utilities would have to rely upon CSP, you know, millions of mirrors and molten salt heat for ON DEMAND juice.

No on 7 says "it would cut jobs". That, my enviromaniac friends, is a bunch of lies because AE is quite labor intensive! Would probably promote e-car factories too.

So do our kids a favor and at least try to promote laws that require MASSIVE CSP. It's the only way out of our oil imported economic and CO2 mess! ! !