[Editor's note: This is part of our ongoing series on the "oil tax" Prop. 87]
If you agree with the discussion below, please email a link to this blog to ten California voters and ask them to email to ten others.
In Part I, I talked about why gas prices won’t go up. Part II talked about how and why prices for gasoline will decline.
I was hoping to discuss in this Part III the health and environmental costs of oil, but Chevron announced financial results last week and in the opinion of people I respect, was two-faced and fraudulent about it. Fraudulent is a strong word, especially coming form somebody who is usually careful about word choice.
According to press release by the Yes on 87 campaign, Chevron confirmed Prop. 87 will not reduce California oil production, which is the cornerstone of the oil companies’ misleading campaign ads. With this admission, Chevron CFO Steven Krowe declared that Chevron expects to continue at least current levels of oil production in California after Prop. 87 passes.
In announcing its $5 billion third quarter profits, Chevron’s CFO said “we could see at current prices and current production levels a penalty on Chevron in the order of $200 million.” Chevron then issued a subsequent statement denying it said that Prop 87 would have no impact, assuming current prices and production levels.
Whatever they said, it is clear the oil industry has been on a massive mis-information campaign. During the summer’ peak oil prices, they kept insisting in full page ads in major national newspapers that world oil prices determine gasoline prices — and they have no control over prices. Today they are saying exactly the opposite in California, except when the truth inadvertently slips out. Saying they will cut production in California in public statements would be fraudulent if they did not intend to. You be the judge.
In this one state, they have raised almost $90 million (during the last Presidential election, each candidate spent about $125 million in all 50 states!) to spread their mis-information. Money can buy a lot and they are buying it. The Los Angles Times recently said: “The oil industry, fighting the Proposition 87 oil tax, has paid $35,000 to Aaron Read. Read heads one of Sacramento’s top lobbying firms, representing police and firefighters unions. Police officers and firefighters are featured prominently in the No-on-87 campaign.” It went on: “Police and firefighters have received more than $220,000 for being featured prominently in both the No-on-86 and No-on-87 campaigns. One reason may be that lobbyist Read represents many public safety unions.” My understanding is that the California Chamber of Commerce was paid $345,000 to endorse the No on 87 campaign.
Proposition 87 has been endorsed by former President Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore. Senator Feinstein and the American Lung Association have all endorsed it. None of them were paid. Nobel Prize winning Stanford economist, Prof Paul Romer, has blogged about the fact that there should be no noticeable impact on gasoline prices but that voice, unpaid, has been drowned out by the chorus of heavy spending on slick oil ads on economists stating otherwise. You can decide if it is likely that many of these economists were paid. Reasonable people can disagree on this tax but money should not be able to buy these opinions. Economist Greg Mankiw, former Chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors, does not like Prop 87 because it does not raise gas prices. Alan Greenspan also wants higher oil prices. Well known energy economist Severin Borenstein discusses it plusses and minuses. But paid opinions are something we should rebel against.
It is offensive and dis-heartening to see how the oil money is being used. Tom Friedman said in his op-ed piece in the New York Times recently: “Up to now, oil companies in California have paid a very low extraction fee compared with those in other states a rip-off they want to keep.” When the tragedy of Katrina happened the oil companies were able, with their vast campaign and lobbying contributions, to push to get $7 billion form the relief funds. An oil severance tax has been tried in the California assembly starting in the 1950’s by then Governor Brown and more recently by the current Mayor of LA, Mayor Villaraigosa when he was in the assembly. But campaign contributions and lobbying backed by billions of dollars of clout wins out every time. The oil companies manage to get out of paying their fair share. One energy company (Peabody Energy) actually spends almost 5% of its revenue on lobbying almost nothing on research. What?
One of the most revered and old British scientific Societies, the Royal Society which counted Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein as members, accuses Exxon of “misleading and inaccurate” information about climate change by financing groups that misinform the public on this issue. Exxon had pledged to stop giving money to such groups that spread misinformation the society considers misleading. That is a clear admission that they are spreading mis-information. Recently Senators Rockefeller (D) and Snowe (R) said that ExxonMobil’s extensive funding of an “echo chamber” of non-peer reviewed pseudo-science had unfortunately succeeded in raising questions about the legitimate scientific community’s virtually universal findings on the detrimental effects of global warming. Is it a surprise that they gave Stanford University over $50 million and the funded group is very kind to Exxon’s views? Even a university can be bought. It just takes more money and the oilies have enough.
According to the Sept 21, 2006 NY Times front page, four government auditors in lawsuits claim they were blocked by their bosses in the interior department from pursuing fraudulent underpayments on oil and gas leases. Money can buy anything! Even government policy or immunity. And luckily oil prices have declined just before the election. Are you intrigued by the timing? Luckily for whom? Do you see a pattern of behavior here?
Are the oiling companies letting the alternative energy companies have a level playing field? I guarantee you its not level as capitalism demands? It is not fair competition or tactics. In my next blog, Part IV, I will discuss “extensive health and environmental costs of oil”.
Do you believe Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Senator Feinstein and Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, (all unpaid)? Or do you believe the oil companies and their “bought endorsers”?”
As Tom Freidman says: “Passage of Prop 87 would be huge”. Vote Yes on 87!
13 Comments
-
alpha24seven said:
It will be simple for you to convince people to vote for Prop 87.
As I mentioned earlier, both yourself and Mr. Doerr should recuse your firm, and your LP’s from taking any of the $4bn form Prop 87 to fund any of your AE/RE portfolio companies. Until then, this smacks of a really disingenuous way to use the public via a democratic process to become your defacto LP’s.
It really REALLY smells bad. And no I’m not getting paid, nor am I part of big oil. I’m a citizen that saw this conflict of interest in a nano second.
Furthermore, You are such an intelligent guy and I really can’t believe that — YOU — really believe that dinging the oil industry for $4bn won’t raise prices at the pump. It’s a serious departure from reality. Forget the “safeguards” has anyone ant anytime EVER been able to give an accurate reason why gasoline is the price that it is at the pump? That would be a big fat NO. Under those auspices, how would you hold the fire to their feet? In a million years you could NEVER prove that Prop 87 caused the price at the pump to go up! The so-called pricing safeguards are a sham.
-
Robert Rapier said:
Nobel Prize winning Stanford economist, Prof Paul Romer, has blogged about the fact that there should be no noticeable impact on gasoline prices but that voice, unpaid, has been drowned out by the chorus of heavy spending on slick oil ads on economists stating otherwise. You can decide if it is likely that many of these economists were paid.
When did Professor Romer win the Nobel Prize? His Wikipedia biography doesn’t mention it. His biography on his Stanford page doesn’t mention it. I just looked at the last few years of winners in economics and didn’t see his name. Now, it is possible that I am wrong, but if so, could someone please tell me in what year the prize was won?
If Professor Romer did not win the Nobel Prize, it certainly would not be the first time I have had to correct Mr. Khosla. I have done so numerous times on matters of energy policy. He claims that misinformation is being spread, yet his work is riddled with errors of fact and exaggerations. This is what happens when you start operating far outside your area of expertise. (To his credit, he has corrected some of the errors I have pointed out). Yet for some reason, there are people ready to throw him the keys to the nation’s energy policy. Mr. Khosla may be an expert’s expert in the world of Silicon Valley, but every time I read one of his essays I am reminded that he is quite out of his element when talking about energy policy. This is a train wreck waiting to happen. Why does it matter? Because if he is wrong – and I am quite certain he is – then we are going to waste precious time waiting for a solution that never comes. Conservation isn’t sexy, but we know it works. The more time we wait around putting this solution off, the worse off we are going to be.
Note also that the tactics continue to worsen. Aspersions are cast. If he “heard somethingâ€, that becomes good enough to pass on. If someone disagrees with him, they must have been paid to do so. Are we all 3rd graders here? Is this the level of discourse that Mr. Khosla prefers to engage in? It’s sad, really. In my opinion, Mr. Khosla’s reputation is going to be severely tarnished when all of his ethanol predictions fail to materialize. But I have read enough of his essays at this point to know that he will put the blame at the feet of the oil companies. It won’t be his fault that he didn’t deliver.
On the issue of Professor Romer’s claim, someone from his company brought it to my attention a few days ago. Here was my response:
I can tell without looking at Dr. Romer’s CV that he has never done any economics for the oil industry. His fundamental assumption is wrong:
“The market for oil is global, and the price of oil is set by global supply and global demand.”
I suspected at this point there was going to be a problem. Oil prices vary enormously in different areas based on oil quality, seasonal demand, local logistics, etc. There is not a “world price of oil.” This is probably the single most common error that I see in these analyses.
“If the price of oil delivered from a local producer was more than P*, she wouldn’t buy any.”
That’s ludicrous. That presumes that price is the only thing that matters to the refinery manager. If Dr. Romer had ever run a refinery LP, he would see how absolutely wrong his assumptions are. Perhaps Dr. Romer could do a bit of homework and show the actual price for oil produced in California, versus, say West Texas Intermediate. That might reign in some of those unrealistic assumptions that went into this analysis.
I won’t go on. I have seen enough to know that Dr. Romer, who may be renowned, is outside his element here. Actually, I could do a very similar analysis to show why a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico will have a minimal impact on oil and gas prices. After all, there is plenty of global supply to fill that shortfall, therefore prices won’t go up. So why did they?
I am sure that you are also aware that scores of economists have come out and stated that Prop 87 will increase gas prices. In fact, I am sure far more have agreed that prices will go up than those who think prices will go down.
My prediction is on record. If it turns out to be wrong, by all means contact me, blog about it, whatever. However, if it turns out to right, don’t forget about that either.
Cheers, Robert Rapier
Finally, this nugget was too good to pass on. Mr. Khosla wrote:
Economist Greg Mankiw, former Chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors, does not like Prop 87 because it does not raise gas prices.
Mr. Khosla may also want to know that Greg Mankiw wrote:
If we want Californians to produce less oil and import more from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, then the proposed tax is well designed. But this goal does not seem the right one to me.
-
Robert Rapier said:
I might add, since Mr. Khosla seems to be a fan of conspiracy theories:
Green machine: Bill Clinton and Al Gore are by far the biggest stars pushing for Prop. 87, the proposed tax increase on oil drilling to pay for alternative fuels research — but behind them is a constellation of wealthy interests that are really fueling the push for more green tech.
Among them:
– Hollywood producer Stephen Bing, who has given an eye-popping $40 million to the Prop. 87 campaign that he helped launch.
– Vinod Khosla, a partner of Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and one of biggest players behind Prop. 87.
– Supermarket magnate and Democratic political contributor Ron Burkle, who not only is one of Clinton’s closest pals but also put the former president on the board of his investment company, Yucaipa Cos. Clinton reportedly shares in the profits of the company’s successful investments.
Bing, Khosla and Burkle are all part of the $1 billion investment fund for renewable energy that Clinton announced last month at his big Global Initiative conference in New York.
And just last month, Yucaipa announced — along with Virgin Air’s Richard Branson (another Prop. 87 backer) and Khosla Ventures (as in aforementioned Vinod Khosla) — that it had invested in Cilion, a California company that plans to build three ethanol plants in the state.
Cilion, in turn, announced plans to use technology and equipment from an Indian firm called Praj Industries — an outfit in which Khosla and Kleiner Perkins purchased a 10 percent stake six months ago.
Now those are all factual pieces of information, unlike Mr. Khosla’s “Unnamed sources tell me…..â€
Cheers, Robert Rapier
-
tate423 said:
Robert just smacked down Mr. Khosla. Talk about scratching backs.
-
SFGary said:
I would like to ask Mr. Rapier why its a problem for the oil companies to pay an extraction royalty that is comparable to what they pay other states? Never mind the argument on where the money is going to be used nor do I care if Vinod Khosla knows anything about global energy policy.
-
Robert Rapier said:
You don’t care whether Mr. Khosla knows anything about global energy policy? Don’t you think a person should have some demonstrated expertise in an area before influencing the national direction of our energy policy? Personally, I do. As I have stated many times, the very real danger is that the public is lulled into a false sense of complacency and we will continue to deplete our oil supplies while we wait in vain on Mr. Khosla to deliver. When we realize that he isn’t going to deliver, peak oil may be upon us and then we will be in a very serious bind, when we could have been preparing a real solution.
Why is it a problem for oil companies to pay an extraction royalty? Where have I ever said it was? What I am pointing out is that those who say “oil companies aren’t paying their fair share because they don’t pay an extraction royalty” are being disingenuous. California adopted a different taxation model than did those other states. They have steeper corporate and property taxes. So, California oil companies already pay a higher portion of their overall revenues than they do in Texas. If you want them to pay more, that’s fine. Just don’t say they aren’t paying their fair share. That is misinformation, and just fans up even more hatred toward the oil companies.
Cheers, Robert Rapier
-
Mark Wendman said:
Robert,
Why bother weighing in on Prop 87, since you surely don’t live here, and what is worse is that in the coming year you are going to move to Scotland apparently to work for yet another oil concern, as you have mentioned.
Scotland and Bozeman are pretty far from California if my geography is correct.
Renwables and alternative energy sources work doesn’t seem to be in your current and near future career actions. I realize in your past, you have done some minor related work and research in narrow aspects of renewables, but let’s talk about the present and commercial activities in manufacturing or commercial R&D.
So please while critiquing is nice, look in the mirror 1st. Do first, then armchair quarterback efforts of others.
The Oildrum forum, while your balliwick, is not California energy policy thank goodness. Else we would not have had catalytic convertors in all likelihood, and the air would be miserable. Nor California emissions standards nor fuel mileage goals. All conveniently objected to by many parts if not all of the Oil Industry.
Seems like echos from the past you are projecting on yet another oil industry stonewalling.
These programs and efforts provided real progress started here in California and taken up by others after leadership by this fantastic state.
I’d gather that Prop 87 is intended to wrest the stranglehold nonrenewables have on sectors of California’s energy economy.
Somehow you repeatedly fail to acknowledge this in most of your diatribes. You tend to digress where convenient.
Any effort that does not meet your high standards, that you surely do not practice in renewables lately, is not good enough for you.
Well maybe some folks are not terribly interested in a ?Montanan moving to Scotland to tell Californians how to clean up their air and make progress to lower overall emissions?
And especially someone who clearly while yakking about how others efforts in renewables is not up to their own snuff, he hardly does something substantive about it himself today or tomorrow.
That mirror you look in must be a harsh reflection??
Assisting a transition to renewable fueling and energy sources is the reason for prop 87.
THE REASON.
Not some sideline, not some sidebar, not open to nitpicking debate.
The funds potentially raised by Prop 87 are intended to catalyze efforts in alternative energy or all kinds and all applications - to transition a diversification to alternative renewable sources with the backing of the California electorate.
Some folks are trying to do something about the future of automobile and other energy requirements here - to develop a critical mass in diverse cleaner alternatives.
You are so sure of yourself in most of your denigrating of others who put in effort into this, as if you and Prof. Tad (both employees of, or funded by, the oil industry) seem to have the last word in viability of alternatives or the appropriateness of the policy work which resulted in crafting Prop 87.
Seems like there were numerous participants in the writing of the text of the proposition?
Did you bother to contribute then, to have you say into California energy policy proposals? Or is it laziness to merely sit from the sidelines and armchair quarterback an attack after the text of the proposal was formulated?
What specific better proposals - complete answers not critiques - do you offer?
Or you will only look at one aspect and hone in on that with your “tenaciousDNAâ€, but really miss the MAJOR point of the intent of Prop 87, energy diversification into cleaner alternative renewables, through a public and private funds partnership.
Tenacious but Misguided-DNA possibly? Your Tenacity here in missing the major point of Prop 87 is not responsible.
Misapplied tenacity can just be bullheadedness. I would not take pride in that in the least.
While you repeatedly claim you know better, you are thin on specifics proposing a complete and succinct plan to commercialize and develop alternative energy sources for California yourself.
Not merely one narrow aspect of one technology but overall technologies, durable business development and sustainable policy.
You claim to support taxing oil (here and elsewhere) and yet this is specifically what Prop 87 DOES.
And Prop 87 is intended to use the tax monies raised, not to fund state coffers in unrelated matters as is typically used in other state oil taxes elsewhere, but to fund development and implementation of numerous viable alternatives to non-renewable energy sources.
Answer that one?
You object to that?
That is the core of Prop 87.You claim to have the answers all the time, but you mostly miss the major point of this effort.
Or as you have put it from time to time, have you read what has been written, or just sidebars?The cleantech venture community is not unanimous about prop 87, but it is a very good start for policy to actually do something, rather than continuously carp and handwring, but do nothing.
The oceans continue to rise and the icepacks continue to melt….as you obsess about the individual mitpicking. Missing the forest for the trees is what I’d guess might be your modus operendi? Oh and tenaciously so… let’s not forget that.
The numerous efforts that will receive subsidies in alternative renewables from Prop 87 - you repeatedly fail to acknowledge, and focus on narrow trivia to base denigrating the efforts of others.
No one is perfect, but certainly you have invested far less money in new ventures than some folks backing Prop 87, who have far better intentions and acts than you display.
Your comments are more akin to a spoiled child in elementary school repeatedly saying “so thereâ€, without the reponsibility to provide a complete answer to the actual problems and challenges being addressed by prop 87.
Saying “so there” is not in anyway comparable to a comprehensive policy such as Prop 87 embodies.
You are conveniently thin on specifics, or merely argue narrow trivial points, as does your partner Tad the Chevron (funded) UCB OIL professor.
Your purported alternatives to Prop 87 are half baked, partial answers that are often not in the least pragmatic enough to form a business on.
It sort of does show that you have neither funded startup ventures, nor have run technology startups in the slightest.
And if the shift to renewable fuels is to have some durable legs, the critical mass might require some limited public assistance, such as Prop 87 hopefully will provide.
Have a good stay in Scotland when you move there this coming year, and be sure to drive California energy policy from the North Sea fields, pumping the very oil some folks are trying to wean California from before it runs out.
Practice what you preach rather than preach what you don’t practice in the slightest lately.
Please stay on the Oildrum where you can argue into the wind about things you hardly do presently.
Cheers, Mark Wendman
-
Robert Rapier said:
Mark,
Given that 1). You didn’t actually address my arguments, nor have you ever; 2). You address me one way in public but in an entirely different demeanor when you e-mail me; 3). You seem to have a serious comprehension problem even understanding my argument, since you usually argue against a straw man version of it; and 4). Others have e-mailed me that you are a bit of a crackpot; please forgive me if I don’t address your arguments. And please don’t e-mail me any more.
I understand that Khosla is your hero and can do no wrong. I understand that you worship Moore’s Law and think it applies here. I understand your Silicon Valley arrogance, and that you think you can innovate your way to anything. Well, all I can tell you is to stick around, because a few years from now Mr. Khosla’s credibility will be in tatters over this ethanol issue. Why? Because he didn’t understand the fundamental issues, and started making promises he couldn’t keep. But don’t worry. He will blame the oil companies for blocking his access.
If you want to address any of the arguments I actually made, please do. If you only have a long-winded diatribe to offer, then you have nothing to offer.
Cheers, Robert Rapier
-
Ashok said:
Prop 87 is not a referendum on the benefit of alternative fuels research (which is of course obvious to anyone credible). It is about the fairness of taxing an incumbent industry to subsidize the fortunes of another. Big oil should pay its fair share of taxes like every other sector. But why should oil company shareholders be penalized to enrich investors in other energy technologies? To suggest that this tax is required for energy alternatives to be viable is an extreme exaggeration considering the amount of investment money that is readily available for these technologies.
The argument that taxing production will have no impact on the price of the commodity being produced is the economic equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. Holman Jenkins has an article (“Big Ethanolâ€) on Prop 87 in today’s Wall Street Journal. And, a number of editorials in major newspapers across the state have voiced similar doubts on the proposition.
Silicon Valley is all about venture capitalism, not venture socialism. The next great idea in renewable energy, as in every other industry, will be due to creativity and initiative – not taxation and bureaucracies. There will be no shortage of private capital to aggressively introduce the most viable technologies to market. And, if the success of premium-priced hybrid vehicles is any indication, consumers will gladly pay rather than have to be subsidized to adopt new energy technologies.
-
Mark Wendman said:
RR - I understand that you worship Moore’s Law and think it applies here.
MW - Moores law implicitly teaches that when innovation is applied successfully, past performance is not the future. I sense you missed that. It also expresses implicitly that innovation can occur at unprecedented rates when adequate critical mass of R&D effort is applied.
Innovation if successful can materially change things on occasion, with diligence and a bit of luck. There are no guarantees ever, no matter where on earth you are.
Certainly if your take on what constitutes effort to innovate, is merely critiquing others efforts, I think a distinction exists between real effort (and its potential), versus your incessant critiquing (and its potential). That distinction is apparent if you bother to look.
Little ever gets done by denigrating the efforts of others, even if it might give you some jollies. Might make you feel superior for a moment.
Dreams alone make nothing, and alone certainly don’t improve the numbers, but successful innovation can potentially improve the numbers, which you seem to be partially unable to acknowledge, especially if you were not familiar with the specific innovations before your pontificating and posturing.
I contend while the challenges will be hard, as you imply, (this is a means test of substantive innovation) that sufficient effort has a better than decent chance at finding or implementing useful advances. And that public funding partnerships with private money will make unusual headway, better than each alone would otherwise.
No guarantees in the least, but decent chances.
Again this is lost in your perspective that debunking trumps all by airspace alone.
Nothing said by anyone will eliminate the need for hard work and thoughtful efforts.Silicon Valley has no lock on innovation, it is merely a region of highly concentrated efforts in a variety of R&D areas, with a support ecosystem unlike any other for innovative startups of many kinds. And yes it does have a world leading track record in commercializing innovations of many kinds. Unbeatable record I might add, but imperfect.
RR - I understand your Silicon Valley arrogance, and that you think you can innovate your way to anything.
MW - Silicon valley I sense teaches a degree of humility and the requirement to bust one’s chops to actually do anything of significance in innovation. There is no entitlement, but neither does denigrating the works of others do anything of note.
I’d hardly call your denigrating of others efforts with none current in renewables of your own, humility. It reeks of arrogance in spades.
While I am at times none too kind to you, this is largely because of how you demean others for nothing other than glorifying your own “purported†self righteousness.
And as conflicted as you claim others to be, you are of unclean hands in spades yourself. Pot calling the Kettle black comes to mind. Don’t demean others good efforts and I certainly won’t critique your own transparent mean spiritedness. You might remain largely unchallenged on the OilDrum, but I suspect this is not the case here.
Why should I bother you if you do good? And the question here is, are you doing good? Or are your intentions less benevolent?
I will point out that Vinod certainly is doing far more presently to actually get a variety of renewables efforts off the ground, for hopefully making progress, where you merely scoot to Scotland off to the North Sea Oil Field next year.
Just on the face of it somehow I am curious as to your own courage to attempt to crack the challenge of renewables?
Criticize when you are pitching in to help surmount the challenge, not when you skip out across the pond off to another oil patch and not working in renewables?
Your past patterns of denigrating and armchair critiquing - common to discourse on the Oil Drum, will have little durable effect on what gets done here in California one way or the other, dare you admit?
Nor the success or failure.
Nor the fact that there will be numerous diverse effort in renewables funded by Prop 87’s passing. Where you seem to be so dismissive.And yes more specifically, you continually ignore potential upside to innovations looming in Cellulosic. Things that are derived from genetically engineered plant modifications for 1 example, just might have a material impact on the long term viability.
This conveniently brushing aside innovations you are not familiar with, is amusing to me. ( I guess your implicit counterpoint to a Moore like philosophy? )
You are not possessing a blind belief against innovation btw, but seem to argue as if numb to the potentially upsetting prospect of successful innovation debunking your pessimism, or your specific past experience.
Curious I’d observe as it seems that none of your prior efforts in renewables involved genetically modified organisms harnessed for cellulosic enzyme production - either for treatment vats or grown in GM modified plant feedstock such as Agrivida seems to be making progress towards.
I’d call your ignoring the potential impact of substantive innovation symptomatic, not specifically to you by the way, but more generally to industries where the pace of innovation is glacial, such as the oil industry, not known for rapid innovation in the least.
Might there be some connection between you and the oil industry and general outlook on prospects for innovation in renewables and say specifically for prospects to improvements to cellulosic?
Actual innovation, and success or failure thereof, has little to do with Moore, but has everything to do with the fact that the numbers one uses, will not remain static in the least, due to looming innovations you continue to ignore almost completely, and conveniently so.
Annoying slightly, I might add.
But facts and advances coming in the medium term will speak for themselves.
For the most part you speculate on the future, assuming the past is the future, and neglecting that implementing is sometimes the actual commercial limiter, and not predictions of gloom and doom.
I hope that you enjoy the work in Scotland and all the best of luck there.
Others might just take up the slack in trying to make progress of substance in the real tasks at hand, not the blogging part, nor weighing in on renewables when not trying in the least (ie the OilDrum armchair effect?).
And yes everyone is human and has frailties and strengths which you might not admit to. Starting and running new tech ventures is not your strength (yet) I might gather, so I suppose it is likely a stretch for your skill set to be critiquing those who have actual accomplishments there of substance. And for that I guess I will forgive you.
Cheers, Mark Wendman
-
Mark Wendman said:
ASHOK - It is about the fairness of taxing an incumbent industry to subsidize the fortunes of another. Big oil should pay its fair share of taxes like every other sector. But why should oil company shareholders be penalized to enrich investors in other energy technologies?
MW - How many 10’s of billions in profits per year negates the validity of your statement? and if the tax might hypothetically be paid by those pumping gas to the tune of another say $50/ year where is the substance of what you say?
Is the counterpoint to be found later when shoreline communities around the world are drowning in rising ocean levels after we were so “principled”?
Say lets see what happens to the Bay Area with another 10 foot rise in sea level, or 20 foot rise? Or the coastline of India or Manhattan? This is not a local challenge you can drive off in your Mercedes and ignore. Some entity has to take the lead where there is little progress at present. And there should be a partnership of risks involved as there are risks.
ASHOK - To suggest that this tax is required for energy alternatives to be viable is an extreme exaggeration considering the amount of investment money that is readily available for these technologies.
MW - I suspect you might ponder the statement. Is venture capital infinite and the technology risks non-existent? I doubt it. And if there is an extra push that puts us over the top in achieving a critical mass of success in renewables before the pontificating drowns us in rising seas, hell with how perfect the funding is.
If the possible mass flooding occurs, your line of puported reasoning will have sounded very silly - pound foolish and not penny wise either.
If you are so civic minded as to say to hell with the economy lost if the world’s sea level populations are swamped, don’t think for a moment that if you live up in the hill that the vast economic destruction won’t be felt everywhere - whether you lost your house or not.
Global warming is not some kind of theory and the effects of accelerating melting icepacks might well be devastating sooner than we think.
So hew to the “not in my name” money ethic, but you as all of us, fund national labs - but the results from the labs in commercializing technology of value that will adequately address global warming from many causes, has not been adequate is my estimation.
So I guess California might do more than give up under a cloud of self justifying empty rhetoric.
Unless you volunteer for a sea level residence, with confidence that this is all an empty risk… then I’d follow you to watch the results in 10 yrs..
-
Robert Rapier said:
Mark,
Given that you felt the need to fire off another long-winded diatribe, then you still don’t get it. And I am finished explaining this for a single person’s benefit. You seem to be one of the 1% or so who can’t comprehend what I actually wrote, and prefer to put your own spin on things. For the last time, here is my position, for the benefit of anyone misled by your posts.
You keep telling me why Prop 87 is a good idea. Yet I did not argue against Prop 87, and I am not campaigning against. I think it is a pretty naive initiative, but it has no effect on me. You will have to live with it. As you note, I won’t even be in the country.
What I am arguing against is a huge amount of misinformation that is being used to promote Prop 87. You seem to think that there is a place for such misinformation in formulating energy policy. You think such cheerleading is necessary. I strongly disagree. We do not need cheerleaders who don’t clearly understand the problem. We need people who are actually competent in these areas.
Do you know what life was like before oil? Do you have any idea of the conveniences you enjoy because of oil? Do you think Silicon Valley could have been built without oil? Do you think Khosla could fly around the country and preach hatred against the oil companies without the jet fuel supplied by oil companies? You complain about oil companies, but you don’t comprehend where you would be without their products. The stranglehold of the oil companies isn’t because of the oil companies; it is because of consumers who demand cheap energy. People listen to promises such as those made by Khosla because they naively believe that they can continue their lifestyles by just switching to alternatives. If it was that simple, it would have been done long ago. Everyone recognizes the harmful externalities in using oil and gas.
But I have news for you. The days of oil are numbered. There is no combination of alternatives that will enable us to maintain our current energy-intensive lifestyle. What Khosla is doing is very dangerous for all of us. He is promising solutions that will likely never come. When he shows us scaling up to 200 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol, when we make no commercial cellulosic ethanol today, he is gravely misleading the American public and our political leaders. The message to everyone is “Don’t worry, the solution is being worked.” What’s the danger in that, you might ask. If world oil production peaks within10 years, we will be woefully unprepared because of people like Khosla making their misleading, unrealistic projections and reassuring the public. He isn’t just risking his money here. He is risking much, much more. He is ultimately betting people’s lives that he is right, because modern agriculture is entirely dependent upon cheap fossil fuels.
I will say that I believe Khosla’s investment into Kergy is the right direction. Biomass gasification has a bright future. Turning the syngas into ethanol is incredibly inefficient, but I think that will be rectified at some point. But this is again no silver bullet. It is much cheaper and easier to turn coal and natural gas into syngas. Unless these are taxed at higher levels, which I endorse, biomass gasification won’t be able to compete for quite some time.
This is truly my last correspondence with you. I know your game. But I am no longer playing it. I just wanted to clarify my position for those who have shown an actual interest in dialogue, rather than someone who insists on misrepresenting me for reasons that are pretty apparent.
Cheers, RR
-
Brenda said:
Thanks for making this site
