Comments on: Proposition 10: California Alternative Fuels Initiative

By: clay

clay — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:37:41 +0000

Like most of you, I voted no. I think we are trying to force the alternative fuel issue. If natural gas is the way to go, the market will direct us this way.

By: Melody Chang

Melody Chang — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:50:41 +0000

NAAAAAH, no on Proposition 10. For alternative fuels that could spend an additional 5 billion dollars just to recycle gasoline engines. Pollution are at its highest right now; and how long would you think it would take to get rid of all that pollution. Fixing the economy should be our first priority right now, then pollution.

By: Jeffrey Vargas

Jeffrey Vargas — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 02:48:55 +0000

When it comes down to the end, I believe that Proposition 10 is a good proposition, but not when the economy is as low as it is now. Proposition 10 is good because it will make California the leader in cleaner energy, it will also create hundreds of new jobs, but it comes at a price. Proposition 10 will cost millions of dollars. Citizen also fall at risk of higher electric prices, higher taxes. This is a major problem because right now the economy is low and the state just cannot afford any extra spending. We need to save money rather than spend more. This proposition will be a good idea when the economy recuperates. To conclude, I would vote no because it is just not the time that we should be doing this. The major attraction of this bill is for people that buy fuel-efficient cars but that is a very small part of what the bill is. Bonds are for major spending that is necessary but for now, were cool the way everything is.

By: bianca arredondo

bianca arredondo — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:59:49 +0000

I would vote no on proposition 10 because alternative fuels re expensive and they will take the money from everyone and spend it on this new resource and the resource would not even be perfected so what if the alternative fuel did not benefit us? Then the money would be wasted, instead of wasting money just perfect the fuel we have no.

By: Khael Castanedes

Khael Castanedes — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:57:26 +0000

I would also have to vote NO on this proposition because one we have a much bigger crisis that must be solved which is the economy crash. We have a much better chance of fixing this crisis than fixing the pollution problem. I’m all for the environment and better fuel options but i feel it would be more effective and make more sense on focusing on one larger topic, which is the economy crash. It would be nice to have lower gas and oil prices and all but for now we should focus on the more solvable problems.

By: Ian Olazaba

***Ian Olazaba*** — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:44:32 +0000

After reading what prop 10 is about, I would have to vote NO. I do not believe that it is necessary to pay people money just so they have to use alternative fuel. The U.S. is in huge debt and we should not have to bribe people to do these kinds of things. I feel we should use the money on things that we actually need. Do something more productive with it like for schools and hospitals.
To conclude, I believe voting NO on prop 10 is the right thing for me to do as a citizen. It would be a waste of money.

By: AsHLeY RaMIrEz

AsHLeY RaMIrEz — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:42:48 +0000

By: Silvia Rodriguez

Silvia Rodriguez — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:37:25 +0000

I would vote no on prop 10 because it’s just another expense added to California’s debt. If you think about it, buying a gasoline car and adding all of the gasoline bills over time would end up costing the same as a hybrid. I bet hybrids are even more expensive to maintain. This is kind of selfish, but I wouldn’t be alive when the world is breathing 100% pollution.

By: Gaby Aburto

Gaby Aburto — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:36:00 +0000

I would vote no on prop 10
Most people are doing something to help fix our environment. I like what this prop is trying to accomplish but I don’t think it’s the right time for it. The money that it will take can be used for something needed more right now. There are not a ton of choices for fuel-efficient cars to choose from anyways and I think that people might not respond the way the makers of this prop think. I think that this prop can be saved for a latter time when we have more recourses of money.

By: Isabel Huerta

Isabel Huerta — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:34:53 +0000

No on prop 10!
At first it seemed like yeah vote yes, it will help with the economy. After reading more on it its really not a great idea. It wouldn’t actually work because it would be money going towards research and try to build technology that might help. It’s not even a for sure a thing if it would help the economy. The economy isn’t in good shape right now, so that wouldn’t be too smart! Hopefully the prop doesn’t get passed, we would be in a much deeper debt than we already are. Right now we need to work on getting out of this recession.
Plus I’m saving that $5 billion check that i got from the government to buy my own little country, and name it “Awesome” because everything would be awesome! ha ha well maybe.