You have a valid point of view. Let’s reduce oil supplies to create the incentive to find alternative fuel sources. That is the same point of view the backers of this measure have. My concern is that if we reduce the oil supplies and don’t find alternative fuel sources we can have an economic crisis - either fuel shortages or much higher gas prices or both.

I am also troubled by the fact that this provision gives $4 Billion to a group of 50 non-elected individuals to decide how to spend it, with no accountability to the public. They can blow through the money without having found alternative energy sources….and then what have we accomplished. They can also direct the money to pet projects that may not be productive and which benefit the very people who are directing where the money is spent.

I would rather have private industry fund the research into alternative fuel sources such as Chevron and some of the other oil companies are doing. That way you know that they are going to watch how the money is spent and that it is being spent productively. The oil companies know that they have to find alternative fuel sources. They can see the writing on the wall. They will develop them more efficiently and probably less expensively than this proposition provides - without creating the economic crisis that will result if this proposition passes.

You say that we must have the alternatives in place before we wean ourselves of oil. Unfortunately, no one has an incentive to develop the alternatives as long as oil is still readily available.

Let’s face it, we are addicted to oil. As with any addiction, the addicted have no reason to bother to think about how to live without their “drug” unless you take the drug away from them. If you do, sure it hurts (e.g., gas prices may rise), but then you actually start getting creative about how to live without your “fix”. If gas prices are higher, people may start using public transport, buying green cars, demanding the ability to telecommute, etc.

As for this being a “personal agenda”, and the parties backing it profiting from it - so what? A “personal agenda” becomes “leadership” when sanctioned by the people. I.e., when you vote an elected official into office, you are sanctioning their personal agenda (unless you are naive enough to think elected officials truly “represent” the will of the people). And that’s what a Proposition does - it asks the people for their approval.

If the backers of the Proposition make some money off it, more power to them! They have the insight and the means to make a positive impact on the future of our state and country. Why shouldn’t they be rewarded? Isn’t that the American way?

Because of the way this Proposition is drafted it is easy to miss the point. I wholeheartedly agree that we should begin to research alternative energy. I think we should put a major effort behind it. But this Proposition requires that we reduce our gasoline supplies in California by 25% BEFORE we have any alternative energy sources. Even if you have only basic economics you can see what a 25% reduction in the supply of gasoline will do to prices.

Yes, let’s develop alternative energy sources, but let’s not reduce our available petroleum supplies before we have something to replace them with. This will lead to economic disaster.

It is absolutely worth thinking about.