Green Daily

A few weeks ago I posted about some of the environmental initiatives on ballots across the country. My hope is that all of you who read that post took the time to decide whether, for example, bonding money for the environment in Ohio is the best way to go.

Ballot language and the titles given to them can be tricky. As one reader pointed out to me a couple California ballot initiatives that address environmental concerns have been panned by multiple environmental and consumer groups.

Proposition 10, the California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Bond Proposition, asks voters whether they want to lend $5 billion for research on renewables and give consumers, namely businesses, money to buy natural gas burning vehicles. The pros and cons of this amendment can be found here.

The bill sounds good, but the Union of Concerned Scientists, Consumer Federation of California, the Sierra Club of California, the California Taxpayers' Association and the California Air Resource Board have all said the proposition is a bad deal.

Sierra Club is opposed to another proposition on the California ballot that might surprise you--or me, as I don't live in California. Proposition 7 would require utilities to generate 20-percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010. Penalties would be incurred for noncompliance, and renewable energy plants would be fast tracked.

Sierra Club says this proposition is crap. The groups says proposed power plants would get less of an environmental review. The group also believes that the proposition is so flawed it would actually stand in the way of its own goal of 50-percent renewables by 2025. The pros and cons can be found here.