Alternative Fuels

There isn't much of a campaign against Prop 10, the California initiative, strongly backed by a company of oilman T. Boone Pickens, to sell $5 billion in general obligation bonds to subsidize alternative fuels, mainly through direct to buyer rebates on certain kinds of vehicles. I was assured for months that the No campaign would find money to launch ads, but that kind of money never materialized. In the meantime a nasty, personal fight has broken out over the measure. At the center is Anthony Rubenstein, a consultant who is working for No on 10. Capitol Weekly has details.

Here's my piece, just now posted on the Scientific American web site, that looks at the poltical prospects of Propositions 7 and 10, two initiatives on the November ballot in California.

An alternative fuels measure -- similar to California's Prop 7 -- did not appear to have enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot in Missouri. But a judge has reversed that decision, the Columbia Missourian reports. The issue was not the total number of signatures but the initiative's requirement with Missouri's distribution requirement. In Missouri, initiative sponsors must collect a minimum amount of signatures in six of the state's nine Congressional districts.

The initiative in question would require require utilities to use renewable fuels for at least two percent of the electricity they sell in the state by 2011, and for 15 percent of electricity by 2021.

That is the question of my blog this week.  Watching Rudy Giuliani speak at the Republican Nation Convention last Wednesday and listening to thousands of people chant, "Drill, baby, drill," I realized how confused our country is on this, well, confusing issue.  Somehow we arrived at a place where Republicans and Democrats are more divided than ever, and over issues like offshore drilling, which had once been off limits by both parties.  I believe people are misinformed, because if the facts were understood, the choice would be clear, no matter what your party affiliation.

The major misconception I've observed is that offshore drilling will lower high gas prices. The fact is that if these projects were to start today, it would take years before new refineries would affect the market...if ever.  Not to mention the amount of oil that could be produced is tiny in comparison with the amount that is produced worldwide.  And let's face it-these refineries really can't start producing today, because realistically it would take years to build a new refinery and.... large amounts of money. 

Friday, July 18, 2008

HYDROGEN CARS: Hydrogen cars could rule road by 2050, slash oil need. A government-backed study says America could nearly eliminate its need for gasoline for cars, pickup trucks and SUVs by 2050 if the government helps build a market for hydrogen fuel cells and other technologies. McClatchy Newspapers. 18 July 2008.

IMPACTS: Antarctic icebergs scouring seabed are new threat to marine life. Antarctic marine life is coming under increasing threat from icebergs that are scouring the seabed and destroying their habitat, a new study by the British Antarctic Survey has found. London Daily Telegraph, England. 18 July 2008

EPA STUDY - IMPACTS: Climate change puts U.S. way of life at risk: EPA. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under fire for apparently discounting the impact of climate change, on Thursday said global warming poses real risk to human health and the American way of life. Reuters. 18 July 2008.

Capitol Weekly looks at the folks behind the two different alternative energy measures on California's November ballot.

UPDATED 4/16 WITH NEW FIGURES: This should be the first of what I hope will become a regular feature on the blog: reports on the opaque California signature market, with actual figures on how much initiative sponsors are paying gatherers for each signature they collect. The per-signature amount is crucial information -- but little known -- because it determines the priorities of the individual signature gatherers. You pay more, they'll put your petition on top of their clipboards. High signature prices, however, also can be a sign that an initiative is weak. Sponsors have to pay more because their initiative has little time to qualify or involves a complicated subject that is hard to explain in a grocery store parking lot.

Here's my rundown on per-signature costs gleaned from a weekend of talking with signature gatherers in Southern California. I'm not specifying exactly where I talked to gatherers to protect their anonymity. I'd like to do this not only for California but also for other states. I'd love to hear from signature gatherers around the country.