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.

The real question you need to ask is whether he’s pushing natural gas because he owns a company that supplies it, or does he own a company that supplies it because he believes that’s the right fuel for the future. If natural gas cars make sense for the country (economically and environmentally), then he’s a savvy pioneer. He predicted the fuel of the future, invested his own money in it and is now promoting it.

My personal take on the NG aspect of the Pickens Plan is that he’s missing an opportunity to take NG cars to the next level: an NG serial hybrid.

I’m no huge proponent for Pickens, but Rubenstein has a few things dead wrong. First, NG is a very clean fuel. The cleanest car on the road today is the Honda GX, which runs on natural gas. Second, methane, the main component of Natural Gas, IS a renewable fuel. It is easier to produce from biomass source NOW than ethanol from cellulose ever will be.

Pickens needs to include PHEVs in his plan. As does Agassi.

Another way to put it, are Carbon Offsets bad (or good) merely because Gore has invested in a company that sells carbon credits?

Just because he wants to make money doesn’t mean that it’s not a good cause. I bought my CNG vehicle… bottom line, because there will be $2k+ per year extra in my bank due to fuel savings. Does that mean that I’m not happy that it’s an environmental boon as well? Or that I’m helping to reduce our outflow to foreign oil companies?

Of course not, I reap multiple benefits from my fiduciary decision. I also suffer some inconvenience due to that decision.. now I fuel every day instead of twice per week. A small trade off. More americans should be willing to be open minded about this.

Somebody is going to make money, whoever it is, better it stays in the US than going over to OPEC.

And somewhere along the way, the earth will become a little greener. People are slowly becoming more concienscious of their impact on mother nature, but we all need to act now, and in some cases, we need to act drastically.