Comments on: Donâ€™t let the Big Oil money confuse you on Prop. 87, part II

By: Venture Beat Contributors » Benefits of an alternative energy future: More jobs, economic growth, cheaper fuels, cleaner air

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 06:36:04 +0000

[...] Part I talked about why gas prices wonâ€™t go up. Part II talked about how and why prices for gasoline will decline. I discussed unfair, maybe unethical if not illegal tactics in Part III. Part IV was about health costs, defense costs, foreign policy costs, and other society. Part V is about the benefits. [...]

By: Venture Beat Contributors » People in Glass Houses

Venture Beat Contributors » People in Glass Houses — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 04:36:55 +0000

[...] Apparently some Proposition 87 proponents have never heard the adage â€œPeople in glass houses shouldnâ€™t throw stones.â€ They complain about slimy tactics, while engaging in plenty of slimy tactics and hypocrisy themselves. In this essay, I will address Mr. Khoslaâ€™s second essay and show that his glass house is vulnerable to my pile of stones. [...]

By: Venture Beat Contributors » Donâ€™t let the Big Oil money confuse you on Prop 87, part III

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:29:00 +0000

[...] In Part I, I talked about why gas prices wonâ€™t go up. Part II talked about how and why prices for gasoline will decline. [...]

By: alpha24seven

alpha24seven — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:09:05 +0000

I will look at supporting 87 if both Khosla and Doerr recuse themselves and their respective VC firms from taking any of this money and placing it in their RE/AE funded companies. I would ask all the other major supporters to pull their funding as limited partners in any VC fund that would get any of this funding.

If they take 87 money and place it in their portfolio companies, this is a conflict of interest of epic proportions. 87 smacks of a way to build portfolio companies without limited partners. Of course, when said company has a positive liquidity event — the VC firm would greatly benefit by not having to redistribute any to the LPs which of course will greatly benefit ($$$$$) the GP’s — Mr. Doerr and Mr. Khosla.

They need to address this sooner than later because it does — NOT — pass the sniff test.

By: William Jolitz

William Jolitz — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:57:13 +0000

The prior comment implies we should punish the small interests, and let the big ones off tax free. Only California has no extraction tax – Louisiana, Texas, and Alaska have already.

Khosla points out that price may largely be unaffected – meaning that the net effect is diverting high oil profits into subsidizing alternatives. As a shareholder, I’d not like that. As a California, it means I’ll see more alternatives to the pump monopoly. I like that.

If you recall, the insurance companies threatened to pull out of California if an insurance proposition passed. It did, and they are still here. Face it, the oil companies will pay the tax, and still market price products at the price they will bear, as they are currently doing.

Time to call the bullies’ bluff.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:43:48 +0000

“California recently passed Assembly Bill 32. It mandates that by 2020 we reduce our carbon emissions to 1990 levels. If we continue using fossil fuels and donâ€™t find alternatives (both cleaner sources as well as efficiency improvements) we will end up with punitive taxes on all fossil fuels”

“Punitive” taxes on fossil fuels, i.e. a carbon tax, is a better solution than a government beauracracy and has already been implemented in several European countries. It will let the market rather than Mr. Khosla decide if we should pursue biofuels, and if so which biofuels, or electric cars or plug-in hybrids or compressed air cars or smaller cars etc. etc. etc.