I've been seeing more 'No on 7' ads than any other

[Oeditpus Rex]

It's quite common to see two of these in one half-hour teevee block — more if you flip channels.

I haven't analyzed Prop 7 yet, but I've noticed that some progressive voter guides aren't taking a position on it. The number of ads against it, though, makes me suspicious, as that would seem to indicate that it's being funded by Big Energy. Further convoluting this is the argument that it's in Big Energy's best interests to seek alternate energy sources as these would probably save them money in the long run.

Thoughts? :shrug:

[Newsjock]

1. This is a tricky one

If you look at the No on 7 ads, most of them are funded in part by PG&E, which immediately raises my suspicions. But it turns out that nearly all of the major environmental groups are also against Prop 7, mostly because they say it's a poorly-crafted solution to a real problem.

[Xithras]

2. Prop 7 is bad, and it's not a convoluted argument.

Here's prop 7 in a nutshell: "California must use 40% renewable energy by 2025, but it is only allowed to buy it from the big energy companies, at a permanently mandated price premium, and that the utilities must sign 20 year contracts preventing them from taking advantage of newer technologies and falling energy costs".

Basically, we have to go renewable, but the big energy corps get to run the system.