The Prop. 87 “oil tax” showdown at VentureBeat

What is Silicon Valley’s role in helping solve one of the planet’s major problems?

Global warming could cost the world’s economies up to 20 percent of their gross domestic product if urgent action is not taken, a comprehensive report released by the British govenrment said today.

[aditude-amp id="flyingcarpet" targeting='{"env":"staging","page_type":"article","post_id":2321,"post_type":"story","post_chan":"none","tags":null,"ai":false,"category":"none","all_categories":"business,","session":"A"}']

“We have a window of 10 to 15 years to take the steps we need to avoid crossing catastrophic tipping points,” the report said. Here is a summary of the highlights. Here is the report itself.

What is California’s responsibility, given Washington’s refusal to approve the Kyoto Protocol? What can Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurs do to help? Well, we’ve got Proposition 87, which would raise an oil tax, and spend $4 billion on alternative fuels — some of it potentially going to start-ups.

VentureBeat is running a series of opinion pieces (at our contributor’s column) over the next few days, elaborating on the pros and cons.

Here is who we’ve had so far:

1) Vinod Khosla: Don’t let the Big Oil money confuse you
2) Robert Rapier: Proposition 87: Deceptively marketed
3) Vinod Khosla: Don’t let the Big Oil money confuse you, part II.

Next up: Tad Patzek, of UC Berkeley.

If you know of an expert, or of an informed observer interested in contributing, please let us know. Also, let us know your own thoughts on this in comments below. VentureBeat would eventually like to make an endorsement on this issue, one way or another.