Since the ‘yes on 87’ view has been represented, I’ll share my thoughts on the subject since I voted no.
Let me start by saying that I am ambivalent about passage. If it passes, and it probably will, that will cause gasoline prices to go higher than they would have otherwise, which should encourage conservation. Energy conservation is the only true solution.
Prop 87 was essentially written and paid for by venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, who’s ethanol ventures stand to benefit from its passage. Any significant push to implement E85 as a mainstream alternative to gasoline would be a disaster for California and our country, given the very difficult challenges in the years ahead with regard to energy. E85 is arguably a net-energy loser, and a terrible waste of arable land, fresh water, and natural gas.
In general, prop 87 represents more government, larger government, and more wasted public monies. On this principle alone, I voted no. Intelligent use of alternatives like solar and wind, coupled with massive conservation and lifestyle changes, are the answer. Unnecessary government bureaucracies allocating ill-gotten tax-payer money (incorrectly, no doubt) will solve nothing.
Like I said, I won’t be terribly disappointed when it passes. The inexorable climb of all types of energy prices will be amplified here in CA, and that may finally force the consumer to seriously conserve. Prop 87 is a base emotional appeal to “stick it” to those “greedy oil companies” who work diligently so that we may all have our cheap energy entitlement. If you are unhappy about oil company profits, we have the power to 1) purchase less of their product, and 2) purchase shares in the “greedy oil companies” so that we may claim title to a small bit of these profits. (disclaimer: I own CVX and XOM)
There is a TON of writing about prop 87 on the blogosphere, especially my personal favorite blog The Oil Drum (sorry Rich, this is my 2nd fav:). But here is a tidbit, just written today:
