I’ve watched several commercials showing oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens and Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon promoting wind power and natural gas as America’s energy mix of the future. I’ve always been skeptical of Pickens’s and McClendon’s intentions. Undoubtedly, wind power and natural gas should be part of the energy mix of the future, but natural gas shouldn’t be a solution at the expense of cleaner renewable resources, and natural gas shouldn’t be wasted on vehicles when more efficient and cleaner technologies exist. Furthermore, cleaner gasoline engines and the almost similar greenhouse gas emissions between natural gas and diesel vehicles are factors that make an aggressive push towards natural gas seem ridiculous from a policy standpoint (more information regarding these claims can be found here). Additionally, given the recent controversy over California’s Proposition 10, there is a lack of transparency regarding Pickens’s and McClendon’s intentions.

Certainly, their argument for natural gas needs closer scrutiny. First, these men want to replace one fossil fuel with another. No doubt, these two men see the end of oil approaching. As a result, they want to tap and squander another nonrenewable resource, which Americans will have to depend on at the cost of developing cleaner and renewable energy sources for Americans. Second, while natural gas is cheaper than crude oil, the price will certainly increase as these two men help build the infrastructure and dependency on natural gas. Currently, Pickens and McClendon are aggressively pushing their agenda in California under Proposition 10 at the expense of California taxpayers.

With any rights agreement there are winners and losers. The winners under Proposition 10 are natural gas or Pickens and McClendon. However, almost all other clean energy technologies and supporters of cleaner energy will be losers. California taxpayers will be losers too.

Pickens’s and McClendon’s plans aren’t very democratic. It’s a fresh imposition on Americans to rely on a nonrenewable fuel source at the expense of Americans. Anthony Rubenstein provides some further insight into Proposition 10 at the Los Angeles Times:

Well, Californians can clarify exactly whose dime it will be: Ours. Along with being the country’s biggest wind power developer, Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a natural gas fueling station company that is the sole backerof the stealthy Proposition 10 on California’s November ballot. This measure would authorize the sale of $5 billion in general fund bonds to provide alternative energy rebates and incentives — but by the time the principal and the interest is paid off, it would squander at least $9.8 billion in taxpayer money on Pickens’ self-serving natural gas agenda.

The initiative deceptively reads like it’s supporting all alternative-fuel vehicles and renewable energy sources. But a closer read finds a laundry list of cash grabs — from $200 million for a liquefied natural gas terminal to $2.5 billion for rebates of up to $50,000 for each natural gas vehicle.

Much of the measure’s billions could benefit Pickens’ company to the exclusion of almost all other clean-vehicle fuels and technology. Engines that run on compressed natural gas have a place in pollution reduction, especially for heavy trucks and public buses. But natural gas is a nonrenewable fossil fuel that we import from foreign sources, and it is no better (and in some cases worse) when it comes to emissions and fuel efficiency compared with the best hybrid cars or the new ultra-clean diesel engines. Most insidiously, Proposition 10′s lavish rebates for natural gas-powered cars and trucks could crowd out superior technologies from taking root in California, the largest transportation market in the United States.

Anthony Rubenstein further illustrates T. Boone Pickens’s plans to stay rich at the California Progress Report, CA:

Prop 10 is being funded by Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens and Oklahoma natural gas tycoon Aubrey McClendon who have been spending millions on TV ads pushing their national so-called “Pickens Plan” for U.S. Energy Independence. The reason these out-of-state guys operating in California’s initiative process is, in my opinion, because they can use their wealth to a fund a ballot initiative campaign in order to avoid going through the California Legislature where this measures would never have stood a chance.

For example, in contrast to presently on-going California alternative fuel subsidy programs, Prop 10 requires no accountability in terms of measuring tailpipe emissions reductions, petroleum usage reductions, and doesn’t even require that taxpayer subsidized natural gas powered trucks and cars even stay in California. Meanwhile Prop 10′s commercials tout support for hybrid vehicles, while the only hybrid on the road that actually qualifies for funding from Prop 10 is the Toyota Prius, which arguably doesn’t need any subsidy because it’s on back-order.

All of prop 10’s dubious programming will be funded by making the State borrow $5 billion which when paid pack with interest will cost California taxpayers around $10 billion paid over 30 years at a cost of $330-plus million per year. This at a time when our state is in the midst of a budget crisis caused by a $15 billion deficit.

What about greenhouse gas emissions? From Earth2Tech:

Yes, there is a national security and supply issue that is answered by natural gas vehicles, but the WSJ quotes a California Energy Commission study: When natural gas replaces gasoline, greenhouse gases are reduced by just 20 to 30 percent. When natural gas is used instead of diesel in trucks, greenhouse gases are reduced just 10 to 20 percent. If diesel is almost comparable, then it makes more sense to fund that as a stop gap as that infrastructure is already in place. The article also points out that the natural gas vehicle benefits over gasoline have dropped over the past two decades as newer internal combustion engines have become cleaner and more efficient.

Sidenote: Here in Michigan, McClendon is a controversial figure, because he purchased some 412-acres of nearly undeveloped Lake Michigan property, and he wants to develop his property, containing the ecologically unique Saugatuck dunes, into an upscale residential neighborhood.