An Inconvenient Electric Bill

[Angela Harlem]

No, DrTeeth (the scientist from the Netherlands), that problem was licked a long time ago.

[DrTeeth]

Sorry my mistake, it was in fact licked a long time ago. Just like in New Orleans.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Angela Harlem
geez, where to start. have we had the denial that global warming is a problem yet? the comment that canada should appreciate global warming, cause, you know it snows there and shit, the apparent basing of entire viewpoints on an article, the fighting of common sense... then there's the entire politicising of the issue. i wish everyone could forget fucking al gore for just a minute, but no, we have to look local and argue local. god i can't believe i am referencing paul mccartney... ugh. anyway. in short, what worries me and leaves me utterly dumbfounded is that people firstly deny it's existence and secondly are not in a screaming hurry to fix it. how do you get to complacence on these kinds of things?

and what it really comes down to is that people don't want to be told to change their lifestyles.

because it's inconvenient. hence ...

[Irvine511]

oh, and for the political part, if this is the best Drudge can do, the republicans are totally fucked in 2008.

[LyricalDrug]

Originally posted by randhail
What I would love to see is politicians stand up and decree that within 10 or 20 years that this country needs to be off or significantly on the way to being off a petroleum based economy. This is a country that was hell bent on being the first on the moon and the goal was achieved within 10 years. Maybe I'm being overly patriotic, optimistic or whatever, but I believe that this country is capable of kicking the oil habit - if we just made it a national priority. We claim to have the best this and that and the best science and ingenuity in the world - lets prove it! or we could just play in the sandbox in the middle east for who knows how long.

I think Hillary Clinton hears you loud and clear, right down to the US space program analogy. Here's a snippet of an email she sent to supporters this morning:

"Yesterday, in my latest HillCast, I described a plan for an Apollo-like effort to make clean, alternative energy the energy of America. This plan would create a strategic energy fund to invest in developing and deploying clean and alternative energy -- home grown energy.

We can create the fund without new taxes on Americans by asking the oil companies to "Play or Pay": either they invest in alternative energy themselves, or they pay a portion of their windfall profits earned from the spike in oil prices into the strategic energy fund. We estimate that the fund will have close to $50 billion to invest in America's new energy future over the next 10 years.

My bill would also repeal oil company subsidies they don't need and reward families and businesses for increasing energy efficiency."

[Vincent Vega]

In Germany our electricity providers start to invest in renewable energies large scale because it becomes really competitive.

So you see, Green is no monster attacking the defenceless big business.

[Bluer White]

We can create the fund without new taxes on Americans by asking the oil companies to "Play or Pay": either they invest in alternative energy themselves, or they pay a portion of their windfall profits earned from the spike in oil prices into the strategic energy fund. We estimate that the fund will have close to $50 billion to invest in America's new energy future over the next 10 years.

Won't this result in increased prices at the pump? Does it really matter if Hillary's plan is an "official" tax or a quasi-tax? Don't we hear every single winter about seniors choosing between buying their meds or heating their home?

I'm waiting for the "strategic funds" Hillary has proposed for other industries with higher profit margins than big oil, like finance and biotech. If we are going to regulate profits in one industry, why not them all, especially the highest margin ones?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Bluer White


Won't this result in increased prices at the pump? Does it really matter if Hillary's plan is an "official" tax or a quasi-tax? Don't we hear every single winter about seniors choosing between buying their meds or heating their home?

i'm a big fan of a gas tax.

it would solve SO many problems.

[anitram]

Originally posted by Bluer White


Won't this result in increased prices at the pump?

Given that almost the whole world pays considerably more for gas than you do, I can't understand why Americans constantly complain about prices at the gas pump.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by Bluer White


Won't this result in increased prices at the pump? Does it really matter if Hillary's plan is an "official" tax or a quasi-tax? Don't we hear every single winter about seniors choosing between buying their meds or heating their home?

I'm waiting for the "strategic funds" Hillary has proposed for other industries with higher profit margins than big oil, like finance and biotech. If we are going to regulate profits in one industry, why not them all, especially the highest margin ones?

Well, they are doing quite well, and as she wrote, get subsidised as well.
So you are already paying for your oil companies.

And with the increasing market share of alternative energy producers and suppliers, which creates jobs, they will get into a competition which will decrease the price rather than raise it.

Originally posted by anitram


Given that almost the whole world pays considerably more for gas than you do, I can't understand why Americans constantly complain about prices at the gas pump.

They've never been to Europe

[Ormus]

Originally posted by Irvine511
i'm a big fan of a gas tax.

it would solve SO many problems.

Yes, just like the extensive tax breaks given to the telcos to bring fiber optic internet connections to every home back in the early 1990s....

...So why am I forced to use a slow DSL connection in 2007?

And that comes to my point. New taxes aren't going to be the world's savior, because there's absolutely no guarantee that any of the money will be used as intended (and, knowing Congress' poor record of keeping anybody accountable at all, I fully expect such money to be wasted as soon as it arrives). After all, we were funding the Spanish-American War for over 100 years through a gas tax, and look where that got us? (Heh....)

Personally, I'd rather see Big Oil go the way of the Dodo and the telegraph, rather than giving them an incentive to continue their corrupt business model well into the 22nd century, but with a new product. And, frankly, the U.S. government can achieve this goal through targeted legislation, calling for x% of all cars to start using ethanol, hydrogen fuel, or whatever by a certain date and creating incentives to build the appropriate fuel infrastructure/pumps at a national level. That alone could probably lead to increased investment and venture capital into the companies that would create this technology in the private sector, and the shareholders would certainly make sure that they spend their investment as intended, because it will be Chapter 11 for them otherwise when all the investors pull out.

(And it's not as if there isn't a precedent for this. Had it not been for targeted government legislation in the 1970s, we'd all still be driving 8 mpg clunkers.)

The trouble is that Bush has never been interested in any of this, and nobody--including the Democratic Party--has ever been serious enough about discussing it. As far as I'm concerned, a "gas tax" is a futile non-starter, because, not only would the money be wasted like the Universal Service Fund currently is, but the public opposition to such a gas tax would be so fierce as to cause the party in power to be immediately removed from power in the next election.

We're better off evolving towards the 22nd century through targeted goals and incentives, rather than punishments.

[A_Wanderer]

Again it's short sighted to think that by shifting technologies is damaging to the economy. When we shifted from typewriters to computers, we killed the typewriter industry and hurt the paper industry, when we shifted from film to digital cameras, we killed the film camera industry. There were some people who suffered economically but overall people are better off in the long run. There are companies and countries out there that will make billions off new energy technologies whether it be solar panels, innovative water heating methods or improved insulation in homes.

False analogy; in the case of typewriters and digital cameras the technology was developed and marketed to consumers without government programs forcing people to dump their old alternatives; so far there hasn't been any solutions that outcompete traditional forms in the marketplace and those that do can be greatly lacking (for instance the energy involved in making a Prius means that over the life of the car it exeeds the average hydrocarbon burning one in net carbon emissions.

If a consortium developed a zero emission power source that was cheaper than current ones or a means to make current ones zero emission that was economically viable (in light of lawsuits due to carbon emissions and that liability) then it would be adopted. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars if not trillions forcing it to happen isn't the same.

[BVS]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer


If a consortium developed a zero emission power source that was cheaper than current ones or a means to make current ones zero emission that was economically viable (in light of lawsuits due to carbon emissions and that liability) then it would be adopted.

Not necessarily. There are many other factors involved. There are some sources that may have slightly bigger initial cost, but substantial long run benefits, but get ignored due to short sightedness. There are other people's profits. There's the comfort level of switching over. And there's the pure status quo of "if it ain't broke then don't fix it".

And as you can see, many don't think it's broke.

[A_Wanderer]

Outlay falls under cheaper.

[BVS]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Outlay falls under cheaper.

I understand that.

Here's an example. There's a town here in west TX. 5 years ago a company proposed a swith to wind power. The whole town could be powered. Not one household would have to change a thing. The cost was nothing, and the town wanted it. Well the utility company didn't, so in working with the local government they passed laws that restricted the building of these turbines, i.e. height restrictions and what not. So the local utility company halted progress due to their loss of profits. It wasn't a matter of having inferior power source or cost.

That was 5 years ago, they have since lost a law suit and the turbines are now being brought in.

[Ormus]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
False analogy; in the case of typewriters and digital cameras the technology was developed and marketed to consumers without government programs forcing people to dump their old alternatives; so far there hasn't been any solutions that outcompete traditional forms in the marketplace and those that do can be greatly lacking (for instance the energy involved in making a Prius means that over the life of the car it exeeds the average hydrocarbon burning one in net carbon emissions.

If a consortium developed a zero emission power source that was cheaper than current ones or a means to make current ones zero emission that was economically viable (in light of lawsuits due to carbon emissions and that liability) then it would be adopted. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars if not trillions forcing it to happen isn't the same.

Where government ends up being important is in developing the R&D for products that are "too adventurous" for the marketplace, because, let's face it, corporations aren't interested beyond the current fiscal quarter. And developing "space age" technology isn't something that a company like Exxon is interested in, when they're making record profits with plain, old-fashioned crude oil. And why would the old farts who run America's corporations care about global warming? They'll just laugh all the way to their golden coffins.

However, unlike the NASA-era development that ultimately created things like microwave ovens and hair dryers, things like ethanol, hydrogen fuel, nuclear power, wind power, and ocean power already exist. It's really now a matter of promoting that the infrastructure be built and utilized. And that's where government, rather than taxing the death out of things (which, really, would only be necessary for R&D spending), can set targeted goals and incentives for the private sector to build the energy infrastructure needed for the 22nd century. But we need the leadership; if Bush was as concerned about this as he was in "rebuilding Iraq," it could happen.

[Ormus]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Here's an example. There's a town here in west TX. 5 years ago a company proposed a swith to wind power. The whole town could be powered. Not one household would have to change a thing. The cost was nothing, and the town wanted it. Well the utility company didn't, so in working with the local government they passed laws that restricted the building of these turbines, i.e. height restrictions and what not. So the local utility company halted progress due to their loss of profits. It wasn't a matter of having inferior power source or cost.

You've outlined one of the biggest problems in America regarding alternative energy, because there's no legal framework in place for outside companies/entities to add to our power grid and get paid for it. As such, your local power utility is not compelled to cooperate with anyone except itself.

Utility deregulation is going to be necessary--as long as it is done properly. Perhaps that means maintaining state regulatory control over the transmission lines, while casting off the power plants themselves as wholly private entities, and, as such, creating a kind of "net neutrality" for power lines, where everyone is allowed to add to the grid (and that could, theoretically, include micro-level homes with solar cells on their roofs selling their excess power).

Either way, one of the first steps that our government needs to tackle before it even starts talking about alternative energy is this. But I guess there isn't enough hot-button "tabloid shrill" for them to pay attention to this issue.

[AEON]

Originally posted by Irvine511




and what it really comes down to is that people don't want to be told to change their lifestyles.

because it's inconvenient. hence ...

Indeed.

[elevated_u2_fan]

It's seriously depressing...

I personally think New York will have to be flooded under 10 feet of water before anyone will actually sit up and start to do something...

[redhotswami]

Originally posted by elevated_u2_fan
It's seriously depressing...

I personally think New York will have to be flooded under 10 feet of water before anyone will actually sit up and start to do something...

you mean swim up?