The Yes on 87 campaign held a rally in SF on this week to promote the alternative energy proposition onthe California ballot this month. Former President Bill Clinton spoke to the crowd about the need for this proposition to pass.
Where do the candidates stand on energy policy?
It is so important for our next President to not repeat the mistakes of the last eight years with regard to energy. We can no longer go fighting for oil in order to salvage our energy woes. The next President will need to have a firm grip on energy policy and in a best case scenario they will be on board with a strong alternative energy policy.
We are bringing you a look at the various candidates and how they stand on energy policy for the future of our country.
Here is a report on yesterday's election in California. Propostiion 87 was defeated by CA voters to the disappointment of many activists trying to clean up the air and stimulate alternative energy development.
Peterborough, New Hampshire [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]
Proposition 87 — which would have imposed an extraction fee on oil company drilling in the State of California — was defeated at the polls 45 to 55 percent on November 7.
"Oil companies spent nearly $100 million trying to convince California voters that collective suicide is a good idea. Unfortunately, they were successful."
– Adam Browning, Vote Solar Initiative, Executive Director
The Clean Energy Initiative would have raised up to $4 billion through the fee to help fund renewable energy and energy efficiency programs in the state. It was endorsed by a coalition of environmental and public health organizations, as well as leaders like President Clinton and Vice President Gore.
"Oil companies spent nearly $100 million trying to convince California voters that collective suicide is a good idea. Unfortunately, they were successful," said Adam Browning, Executive Director of the Vote Solar Initiative.
Opponents of the bill argued Prop 87 would result in higher gas prices and create a greater dependence on foreign oil; which would have placed an additional strain on school districts and municipality transportation budgets throughout the state.
We told you about the big deal between [tag-tec]BP[/tag-tec] and UCB and Univ of Illinois recently and how they are trying to build a research institute to develop [tag-tec]alternative fuels[/tag-tec]. The deal was announced with big fanfare at UCB. Well now the faculty and students at Berkeley have spoken up and demanded to be heard on this issue.
The chancellor of the university Robert Birgeneau has said that the overwhelming response he has heard to date on this deal has been positive. But campus critics spoke up and asked for a forum to have their voices heard on the this topic.
The deal between the two universities and BP calls for $50 in funding per year for ten years that would go towards [tag-tec]energy research[/tag-tec] facilities at the two campuses. The oil giant corporation has tried to paint this deal in the best light of cooperation between themselves and the universities.
The forum was sponsored by the Academic Senate and some of the speakers included, Shankar Sastry, director of UC Berkeley's Center for Information Technology in the Interest of Society; Beth Burnside, vice chancellor for research and a professor of cell and developmental biology; Ignacio Chapela, an assistant professor of microbial ecology; David J. Vogel, a professor of political science and business ethics; and Robert Reich, a professor of public policy and labor secretary under former President Bill Clinton.
Here is some of the dialogue from the event held at UCB on 3/8/07.
Anthropology Professor Paul Rabinow cited the 1998-2003 research deal between Swiss biotech firm Novartis and Cal's Department of Plant and Microbial Biology. That deal, which provided for $5 million a year from 1998 to 2003, was intended to develop genetically engineered foods. It sparked campus protests and was criticized at the time by faculty members who felt it was implemented without collegial debate.
"The way the university handled it was completely, recklessly stupid," Rabinow said.
The same mistakes are being repeated with the BP deal, he said.
"It should have been transparent, there should have been consultation," he said. "This is silly. You should have given us more time to debate this."
Art history Professor Tim Clark voiced deep misgivings about the lack of discussion on the conflicts that may occur in a research agreement between a public university and private corporation.
"The tension between one imperative and the other ought to be explicit in whatever deal the university strikes," he said. "The deal ought to be open to inspection."
Faculty governance should have a place of power in the arrangement, he said.
"The ongoing research program of the university should be as relentless in the pursuit of (Cal's) interests as (BP) will continue to be in its," he said.
I doubt very much that this forum will put any halt to this effort to build a large research institute. TRhere is too much money at stake for the parties involved to change their minds or alter things. The most one can hope for is perhaps some special oversight of the process to make sure it gets done right.
