As we move closer to the first Tuesday in November, politicians and political organizations are increasingly selling themselves and their propositions on television. As an AP Environmental Science student, Earth Science intern, asthmatic, and a person who cares about the planet we all share, it is my duty to fully understand Prop. 87 (even though I can’t vote until the next presidential election). Unfortunately for me, the tube doesn’t help. Advertisements on TV are so one-sided and uninformative that I sometimes wonder whether the next anti-parcel-tax ad will read something along the lines of, "If you are against people unnecessarily dying of breast cancer, vote no on Measure XYZ." See the correlation between breast cancer and a parcel tax? Neither do I. So what are the facts on Proposition 87?

According to the California General Election Official Voter Information Guide, the proposition has three key summarizing aspects:

— "Establishes $4 billion program with goal to reduce petroleum consumption by 25%, with research and production incentives for alternative energy, alternative energy vehicles, energy efficient technologies, and for education and training.

— Funded by tax of 1.5% to 6% (depending on oil price per barrel) on producers of oil extracted in California. Prohibits producers from passing tax to consumers.

— Program administered by new California Energy Alternatives Program Authority."

This mumbo-jumbo legal jargon actually makes sense when dissected. Essentially, this David proposition takes out two Goliaths at the same time: One, it taxes California oil producing companies. The Big Five (Chevron, Exxon Mobil, British Petroleum, Shell, and ConocoPhillips) have made a combined $95 billion so far this year – I think they can afford to take the small hit of a total of $4 billion over the next ten years. Two, Prop. 87 spends all revenues on making California a healthier state. According to an impartial legal analyst, the proposed California Energy Alternatives Program Authority (CEAPA) would use funds generated by taxes to reduce gasoline and diesel use (57.5 percent), research renewable energy technologies (26.75 percent), accelerate commercialization of alternative fuel source technology (9.75 percent), educate the public and administer the program (3.5 percent), and vocationally train community college students to work with new fuel tools (2.5 percent).

The reasons why people should vote against the proposition seems rather nebulous; however, opponents to 87 have formed a website crudely titled nooiltax.com (pun intended) to explain their position. Opponents state that the proposition will increase the already-too-high gas prices. Hmm. The last time I checked, the world oil market sets the standard for oil prices – not one state’s tax.

Opponents also argue that this tax will increase dependency on foreign oil. Again, "Californians Against 87" seem to have missed the point of the proposition. Proposition 87 decreases California’s dependency on all oil (yes, foreign oil is a subset of all oil) by putting forth alternative energy initiatives and, in general, reducing gasoline use.

The least-valid point offered by opponents of Prop. 87 is that, potentially, maybe in the future, public education might lose some potential funds because of this proposition. Not only is this argument too vague as it refers to future fund allocations, which have yet to be decided upon, but it is wrong. In fact, Prop. 87 promises to directly fund K-12 and college education about alternative fuel sources. Even if education did lose desired money, it is a risk worth taking so that we can have a cleaner California. It is a risk worth taking so that Palo Alto’s hybrid-mania can be replicated across the state. It is a risk worth taking so that I don’t have to carry my inhaler with me every day. Come Election Day tomorrow, think wisely about Proposition 87 and its implications for you and your posterity.