Proposition 10 on the November ballot would offer California taxpayer money, some $3.4 billion, to help consumers buy cars and trucks that use clean alternative fuels and get 45 miles per gallon or better.

The measure would also provide $1.25 billion for companies to invest in research and development in solar energy and other promising technologies.

This nearly $5 billion proposal would be funded by bonds, meaning the actual cost to taxpayers will be closer to $10 billion than $5 billion.

Californians are dealing with a substantial state deficit at the moment, and any current bond proposal has to undergo close scrutiny as to the need and whether the particulars of the measure serve that need.

As for the need, there is no question that the United States must be on the hunt for alternative sources of fuel and energy. Further, there is little doubt that we could make substantial gains by converting our vehicle fleet to more efficient and less polluting sources of fuel.

Yet in our view, state-government subsidized rebates of energy-efficient vehicle purchases is not a wise use of taxpayer funds.

First, fuel-efficient vehicles are selling briskly without government intervention. Consumers have increased demand for these vehicles, manufacturers are retooling to meet the demand, and the market is working very efficiently in this area.

Taxpayers footing the bill would not accelerate the change as much as it would shift the burden of who pays for it.

Which leads to the next point. California taxpayers have approved billions of dollars in bonds in the last few years to restructure the state debt, build and rebuild roads and pay for other vital services. It promises to be years, if not decades, before the state’s budget is truly balanced.

Adding these burdensome bonds would be harmful to the state’s financial situation, and would do little to advance the cause identified by the initiative sponsors.

Vote no on Proposition 10.