?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
20 October 2006 @ 09:56 am
Help us kill you.  
California Proposition 87 would levy a tax on oil production that would raise funds for development of non-petroleum energy sources.

Okay. I'm not suggesting that this is an undesirable goal. Fossil fuels need to be eliminated. However, am I the only one who finds it perhaps "off" to essentially require a company to pay money to the government when that money is to be used expressly for the purpose of eliminating that very company? One could argue that requiring Philip Morris to pay for anti-smoking ads is similar. I would agree, it is similar. The oil companies have done just what the tobacco companies have done in suppressing research on the negative effects of consumption of their products on health and the environment. More, both types of companies have supported biased research studies in the past in a sort of disinformation campaign.

Nevertheless. This is like telling a man condemned to death by firing squad that he has to go buy the bullets. It doesn't sit right.
 
 
Current Mood: slightly disturbed
Current Music: Danny Bevins - Offended/Color of Water
 
 
 
thatwordgrrl on October 20th, 2006 03:11 pm (UTC)
As a Californian, I'm gonna gently demur

Prop 87 is being opposed by Chevron Oil.

Which, frankly, given their profits, has enough money to buy those bullets.

Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on October 20th, 2006 03:13 pm (UTC)
Not arguing that they have the money. Not arguing that the oil companies deserve any mercy, even. Just saying, the principle of the thing is somewhat disturbing.