• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

LA Times on T. Boone Pickens' Plan

Cal

Well-known member
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rubenstein29-2008jul29,0,2980323.story

From the Los Angeles Times
T. Boone Pickens' 'clean' secret
Proposition 10 would put California taxpayers on the hook for his natural gas plan.
By Anthony Rubenstein

July 29, 2008

Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens is pushing a national campaign to make the U.S. "energy independent" through wind power and vehicles that run on natural gas. His blitz of TV ads featuring his own down-home voice has picked up a lot of admiring news coverage. To date, Pickens has yet to explain whose dime will pay for this.

Well, Californians can clarify exactly whose dime it will be: Ours. Along with being the country's biggest wind power developer, Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a natural gas fueling station company that is the sole backerof the stealthy Proposition 10 on California's November ballot. This measure would authorize the sale of $5 billion in general fund bonds to provide alternative energy rebates and incentives -- but by the time the principal and the interest is paid off, it would squander at least $9.8 billion in taxpayer money on Pickens' self-serving natural gas agenda.

The initiative deceptively reads like it's supporting all alternative-fuel vehicles and renewable energy sources. But a closer read finds a laundry list of cash grabs -- from $200 million for a liquefied natural gas terminal to $2.5 billion for rebates of up to $50,000 for each natural gas vehicle.

Much of the measure's billions could benefit Pickens' company to the exclusion of almost all other clean-vehicle fuels and technology. Engines that run on compressed natural gas have a place in pollution reduction, especially for heavy trucks and public buses. But natural gas is a nonrenewable fossil fuel that we import from foreign sources, and it is no better (and in some cases worse) when it comes to emissions and fuel efficiency compared with the best hybrid cars or the new ultra-clean diesel engines. Most insidiously, Proposition 10's lavish rebates for natural gas-powered cars and trucks could crowd out superior technologies from taking root in California, the largest transportation market in the United States.

Even worse, private trucking and delivery companies could buy 5,000 natural gas trucks, collect California taxpayer-funded rebates of $200 million or more and immediately send those fleets out of state. There's nothing in Proposition 10 to prevent that. It's like asking California voters to finance a new bridge with taxpayer dollars, without mentioning that the bridge could be in Ohio.

Pickens is selling Proposition 10 to green-minded, high-gas-price-paying Californians under the official name of "The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act." If the name rings a bell, that's because it's intentionally similar to the "California Clean Alternative Energy Act" of 2006, also known as Proposition 87. Proposition 87's rebates and incentives would have been funded by fees on the oil industry for petroleum extracted in California, not by taxpayers.

Proposition 87 lost after the oil industry spent more than $100 million campaigning against it. I was the founder and chairman of Californians for Clean Energy, the force behind Proposition 87, and am disgusted that Pickens' lawyers and natural gas sales team have lifted Proposition 87's language and twisted it into such a deceptive, counterproductive initiative.

Pickens' raid on California's general fund comes while Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature are racking their brains trying to make state ends meet. The payments over the 30-year life of the Pickens bonds would deprive Californians of at least $325 million a year to fund schools, fight wildfires and keep emergency rooms open.

Yet in the paragraph of Proposition 10 titled "Accountability," there isn't a word about requiring proof that the billions of dollars spent would result in one less ounce of petroleum used or one fewer wisp of greenhouse gases emitted in California.

I've met Pickens, and I'll vouch for his patriotic intentions to get the U.S. off of foreign oil -- but not for funding his interests on the sly with billions of dollars from California's taxpayers. In fact, I'd prefer to believe that he's being ill-served by his lawyers and political consultants, because it's clear that the shortcomings of Proposition 10 could ultimately hurt his energy independence message.

Given that Pickens can also play rough -- he was a funder of the nasty "Swift boat" campaign in the 2004 presidential election -- it'll take guts to challenge him. California's governor, attorney general and treasurer should be the first to say no, because there's certainly a case against a $5-billion bond that results in almost no lasting infrastructure, could siphon taxpayer money out of state and would distort the clean-vehicle market. The makers of hybrid and biofuel vehicles, and California teachers, hospitals and firefighters, who would be on the losing end of Proposition 10, should also think hard about what Pickens' plan would do to them.

Anthony Rubenstein consults on clean technology, eco-sustainability and corporate social responsibility.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
That is interesting Cal-- I was a little skeptical of his image that he was spending millions/billions $ out of the goodness of his heart...

Altho I do believe Natural Gas is a good direction to go- as a fill in and until something besides fossil fuels is found- as the already located reserves is estimated to be enough to take care of the country for 75 years...

The really sad thing is that we have these folks out there that are so super rich they can go around buying/influencing government/foreign policy and annointing Kings.....People so powerful that most are afraid to challenge them....Just doesn't sound like the way America should be....
 

cutterone

Well-known member
Although I think it may be a good idea in theory and there is no doubt we need to convert from oil, we need to be carefull. Is this another Tom Harkin idea? He thought pushing corn for ethanol was a great thing because Iowa produces a lot of corn but he forgot what it would do to the pork industry. Will we simply trade natural gas used for homes at a higher price to consumers for gasoline??
I'm sure he sees a buck for him but it will take someone like him with money and influence to make something happen.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Does anybody have a better plan?

How about level the playing field? Let everyone in the U.S. pay for Picken's plan?

How about de-regulating gas just like they did electricity so that Texans getting it out of their back yard can pay the real cost.

Here's the real reason everyone is fighting mad over it. We have to pay for the power grid being built. Not Pickens. Just Texas citizens.

When the wind gens the power, natural gas plants here in Texas can cut back on consumption. That means more gas available on the supply and demand markets for the rest of the U.S. They don't have to pay for the ERCOT grid.

Electricity has been de-regulated. Natural gas has not. Pickens is gaining in both direction at the rate payers expense.

De-regulate gas just like they did electricity and I am all for it. Or let those who benefit share in the expense.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
OT said:
The really sad thing is that we have these folks out there that are so super rich they can go around buying/influencing government/foreign policy and annointing Kings.....People so powerful that most are afraid to challenge them....Just doesn't sound like the way America should be....
And just who do you think is financing the Obama con campaign??????????? Not all of us are as gullible as you. :p



I saw an interview of Pickens...he wants to use ALL ENERGY SOURCES to get away from dependence on foreign energy(except from friends of the USA...my opinion).

The flaw in this debate is the idea of man-made global warming. We are a very, very, very small factor...certainly not enough to alter natural climate change! It's time to wake up and see the con!!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RobertMac said:
OT said:
The really sad thing is that we have these folks out there that are so super rich they can go around buying/influencing government/foreign policy and annointing Kings.....People so powerful that most are afraid to challenge them....Just doesn't sound like the way America should be....
And just who do you think is financing the Obama con campaign??????????? Not all of us are as gullible as you. :p

Are you trying to say that McSame isn't getting big bucks either?

My problem is when the potential commander in chief has his decision making heavily influenced by those that stand to profitteer the most by warmongering and our taxdollars going toward nationbuilding--that result in bomb, bomb, bomb anywhere songs and 100 years wars statements.....


Operating without the sort of limits placed on campaign fund-raising, the institute under Mr. McCain has solicited millions of dollars for its operations from some 560 defense contractors, lobbying firms, oil companies and other corporations, many with issues before Senate committees Mr. McCain was on.

We're just ending the reign of one Big Oil/military-industrial complex President- and most folks don't think things are as hunky dory as some of you Bush BK's do-- and really don't want to go thru another similar regime...

Sorry if I sound a little negative- just watched the local calves sell on Superior Video- and while input cost has risen excessively- the price being offered is $200 less than last year....Hooray for the King George run economy... :wink: :( :( :( :mad:

Next week he'll probably be telling the USDA to open up Argentina so we can get some more cheap beef....OOPS- I forgot- he already did that... :wink: :mad:
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
No, OT, what I'm saying is that big business/special interest groups grease the palms of who ever is in power to advance their agendas.

OT said:
My problem is when the potential commander in chief has his decision making heavily influenced by those that stand to profitteer the most...

Are you trying to say that Obama isn't getting big bucks either? :lol2: :lol2:

OT said:
Sorry if I sound a little negative- just watched the local calves sell on Superior Video- and while input cost has risen excessively- the price being offered is $200 less than last year....Hooray for the King George run economy...

The economy took a down turn AFTER Democrats took control of Congress...no wonder they have a lower approval rating than President Bush. Seems like the majority of people aren't mind numbed like you Bush Haters!!! :p
 

Big Hill

Active member
Forgive me if i'm wrong but doesn't the congress of the US still make the laws with the president being the final instrument of declaration. It would sound as if you believe that President Bush has caused all of the nations problems. I'm not a fan of the president either but I do believe the democratic controlled congress has caused a great deal of todays problems. Let's face it, they're all crooks as far as I can tell, there for the money not for the good of the people. I notice that each time you refer to Sen. McCain you call him Mcsame. What do you call Sen. Obama? Obummer?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
The economy took a down turn AFTER Democrats took control of Congress...no wonder they have a lower approval rating than President Bush. Seems like the majority of people aren't mind numbed like you Bush Haters!!! :p


NO...the economy hit the skids on March 20, 2003, the day Bush attacked the wrong country.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
kolanuraven said:
RobertMac said:
The economy took a down turn AFTER Democrats took control of Congress...no wonder they have a lower approval rating than President Bush. Seems like the majority of people aren't mind numbed like you Bush Haters!!! :p


NO...the economy hit the skids on March 20, 2003, the day Bush attacked the wrong country.

Right- and thru 6 years of the King George reign with a rubberstamp Republican Congress's drunken sailor spending while borrowing on the futures of our kids and grandkids...So much for the Repubs argument of being "fiscal conservatives"-- if it wasn't so sad it would be laughable....

And these folks seem to forget how our neocon leadership misled them and the rest of the country on the cost- which now will reach over $1 Trillion- so Halliburton/Big Oil/etal of the Industrial-Military complex can profiteer off no bid contracts....And sadly doing much of it while using cheap foreign subcontractors and labor- who are funneling many of the profits back thru Cayman Island accounts to avoid US taxes..... :( :mad:

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

BCFiraqoil.jpg
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
The biggest problem our economy faces is energy because of Sierra Club/environmental wacko/Democrat energy policy.

You two have been blinded by the Hate Bush bias of the drive-by media for the last eight years.

I'm no fan of what Republicans have done the last eight years, but I know Democrats will take the country toward socialism to the demise of freedom and liberty.
 
Top