After reading Anthony Rubenstein’s editorial on “T. Boone Picken’s Clean Secret” I just had to ask the following question: What does $30,000 a month and a 7% fee on every dollar raised to support Prop. 10 and Anthony Rubenstein have in common??? Yep, you guessed it. It would be Rubenstein’s proposal to work on the Prop. 10 campaign submitted in March of 2008. I guess when prospective clients of Rubenstein say “no” to him, he bad mouths them and distorts the goodness of their work to every newspaper that chooses not to fact check an article. No, no, the LA Times was not alone in printing Rubenstein’s loaded twist of the facts. The Mercury News got duped too later this week.

What omissions or twists does Rubenstein make specifically, you ask? First, Rubenstein fails to mention that Prop. 10 substantially funds solar, wind and other renewable energy projects. Clearly, the ballot measure is not just about bringing clean vehicles that achieve high mileage or run on affordable alternatives to oil. Further, it doesn't give a penny to liquefied natural gas terminals as Rubenstein claims. I had to re-read the Proposition just to confirm that Rubenstein cannot read. Turns out he can’t add either based on other bogus arguments that he makes in his editorial. I think UCLA should demand their diploma back and, truthfully, it’s Rubenstein’s lack of ethics that I find appalling, not Prop. 10. Finally, Rubenstein claims that anyone from out of state can receive Prop. 10 funds to purchase a hybrid, plug-in hybrid, battery-electric vehicle, natural gas vehicle, or a fuel cell vehicle but he fails to tell you that the applicant must submit proof of California residency and vehicle registration. This purchase requirement is under Section 26420 (a)(4) of Prop. 10, but maybe the details bore Rubenstein?

Oh, and last time I checked, Boone Pickens is a shareholder, not the owner, of publicly traded Clean Energy. Rubenstein is such an ego-maniac that if I followed his logic on Boone and subsequently learned he owned a single share of some green company, he’d probably tell you that he was its owner and founder. After all, Rubenstein claims that he was the champion and the force behind Prop. 87. I wonder what Steve Bing thinks about this claim after expending tens of millions of his own personal money to pass the measure. If I were Steve, I would not be amused. To conclude, Rubenstein steals Kermit the Frog’s quote on his self-glorified website that “it isn’t easy being green”. After reading Rubenstein’s attacks on Prop. 10, it isn’t easy for Rubenstein to be honest either. Look out Pinocchio! You have new competition and he might even borrow some of your lines for his website if it will make him a buck.

While T Boone may have some flaws in his plan, and profit is definitely one of his motives, the movement that he is creating is something that the environmental community and all efforts to become a "greener" society has been missing is undeniable: a solid plan. We need to use this plan and the momentum gathering around it as a springboard to further the debate and the ACTION towards implementation of alternative energy. He is proposing to build one of the world's biggest wind farms- when did that last happen? When was the last time anyone put their money where their mouth was for this kind of thing?

The author of the editorial (Anthony) is dead wrong on natural gas vehicles (NGVs), but that is to be expected from a neophyte pushing ethanol. There is only one public ethanol station in all of CA compared to a few hundred public CNG stations. Anthony is a relative newcomer/outsider and unknown in the world of alternative fuel vehicles in CA and the LA Times is doing a major disservice to its readership by allowing him to spew his misinformation on NGVs. Having him discount NGVs in comparison to gasoline-electric hybrids and petroleum diesel doesn't even pass the laugh test. Natural gas is the pathway to hydrogen and by the way even the State of CA and industry "professionals" realize that biogas/biomethane is renewable natural gas from agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, and closed landfills. I voted for Prop 87 and would vote for anything to keep the U.S. from its economic hemorraging. Anthony should be driving the Civic GX if he wants to get completely off oil TODAY: http://www.civicgx.com

Natural gas is THE alternative fuel of choice for heavy vehicles…i.e. those that suck down the diesel fuel and are responsible for our poor air quality. From Redding to Tijuana, we have natural gas buses, refuse trucks, and delivery trucks operating on a daily basis. Why natural gas and why not hybrids or biodiesel? Because that’s what the market has demanded. It’s as simple as that. In case we missed it, diesel is selling for $5.00 per gallon right now, and there are no major disruptions in the market today. We need to act, and begin to act quickly and aggressively; while times are still good. Boone Pickens has not only put forward ideas, but is putting forward his dollars. There are no other plans on the table and none likely to soon appear. If someone comes up with better ideas, great, let’s do those too. Boone’s plan is only a small part of the progress we need to see if we are going to see real change in this state and in this nation. Let’s not vilify a fellow American for putting forward ideas and money on how to move aggressively on carbon-friendly and domestically produced alternative fuels and energy for this country. Just because he wants to see an ROI means that he’s up to no good? Isn’t that what this “clean tech revolution” is all about? For less than $40 a year, a half tank of unleaded, sign me up.

Thanks for the enlightenment on Prop 10. I was having trouble imagining any billionaire have an epiphany about anything that didn't enrich their pocketbooks.

A friend of mine tells me that creating, transporting, and re-gasifying LNG, leaves an enormous carbon footprint.

It is amazing the negativity towards someone who has the financial power and intellect to make an incredible much needed change. We import 70% of oil in this country from foreign oil companies that are terrorists, dictators and generally terrible people that hate Americans. Now we have a billionaire oil tycoon with a very sound plan that can drastically lower our dependency on foreign oil and help introduce a plan that would allow for clean natural gas and wind energy.

Does it really matter if he makes billions more doing it, who cares, would you not want to help a plan along that is for the good of the country and make millions if not billions doing it.

The cost to the taxpayer is so minuscule that it is irrelevant. We must look to the positive and the good about the plan rather than look to the negatives of the plan and that is the bottom line.