Now I'm conflicted because I plan to vote against 87. Why? Because they tax oil companies but don't allow them to pass the cost onto the consumer which I think wrong in many ways. For one it does not cause consumers to reduce fuel consumption as a higher price at the pump would do. Second it reduces the amount of money available for exploration which is something we should not be doing now. Third they can only do it for oil drilled in California so it causes the cost of California oil to go up over oil from somewhere else. Why would someone produce oil in California they can produce oil outside California cheaper. Basically this will cause exploration money to be diverted out of California to other places. If they had allowed them to pass the money on to the consumer I probably would have voted for it.
While I agree with you some people waste fuel, other find it a necessity of life and can't cut back and also can't pay $3 per gallon and still feed their families and put a roof over their heads. As to discouraging oil exploration, what about the subsudies we have handed to the oil companies over the years. And what have we gotten from that, how many new oil refineries have been built in the last 35 years? Many oil companies have reported record profits this past year. Oil is a source of life like food and water, it should not fall into the just doing business catagory when it has the ability to cripple a country through abuse. As to exploration in california, there is known oil off the coast and California would rather pay more for it from other states than develope it it'sself. Lastly, do I think oil companies should have to pay to subsidize alternative energy sources, Hell no. That's not the business they are in. Would you tax a Doctor to help out of work auto-workers? Well, maybe in California they would but no where else, just kidding about the last bit.