A ballot measure in California proposes to tax oil production. As you well know, I think a tax on oil would be a good thing, but I meant on consumption. Taxing production is a stupid idea. California is not a swing producer, so taxing oil production in that state will do nothing except to drive oil producers out of the state. Californians will pay higher prices to have more oil imported from out of state, which will certainly reduce consumption, but would that benefit be enough to make up for the loss to the economy of oil production?
The problem is that this tax implies that oil production is the problem. It's not. Consumption is the problem. By its very nature, a tax discourages the activity that incurs it. If California could significantly affect the domestic or global oil supply and thus constraint consumption, this tax might make sense, but they can't. All they can affect is consumption in state. You can import oil from other states and countries, but nobody is going to drive to Nevada or Mexico to buy gas.
In the end, California is going to have a well-meaning bill that achieves nothing positive beyond a short-term and relatively small boost to state revenue, while incurring costs to the economy from overhead and driving out businesses. Some demagogues will make political hay, demonizing the oil industry for feeding Californians' oil addiction, and looking like they're taking strong action, even as they avoid facing the hard truth and doing the right thing.