Published: Wednesday, June 4 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
'Obama's plan means Utah's energy bills will rise’Uh huh . . . because as we all know, energy prices would never rise
otherwise.They've never risen before, have they?They've been going down since the beginning of time . . . But now that
Obama has come up with another dumb plan, they're going to go up for the
first time in the history of the world.If Romney were President,
energy bills would NEVER go up.
Everyone's talking about our coal burning plants, why do all the elected
forget to mention China's pollution reaching our western states.
If one president can with his pen write a directive to tell the EPA to make
rules against coal power plants. What is to prevent another president from
taking up his pen to write a directive to the EPA telling them to write a
different set of rules or to scrap those rules altogether?Personally
I don't believe that President Obama is really worried about global
warming, I suspect there is an other addenda. A president doesn't take a
record number of vacations in his 747 if he is really worried about global
warming. A president worries about global warming doesn't send his family
to Hawaii in a 747 just for them, and the next fly there himself the next day.
So coal-powered electricity rates will rise, so what? I would argue that the
utility customers Mr. Evenson cites paying less than a dime per kilowatt-hour in
the coal belt are paying below market rates due to externalized costs. The
consumers pay for the internalized costs of electrical consumption (fuel,
generation, transmission, overhead) but do not pay the true full costs of their
consumption, which include the effects of air pollution that are shouldered by
the larger community. This amounts to a subsidy that sends distorted price
signals to the market. Adding emissions controls to coal-fired plants acts to
internalize the externalities, that is, to remove the hidden subsidy and make
the price of the commodity more accurately reflect its true cost so consumers
can make rational economic choices and the free market can function properly.
Why do so many free market conservatives have such a hard time grasping this?Granted, increased costs for a commodity can cause pain in the short
term while people and the market adjust. This can be ameliorated through
policies. If coal can't compete in the free market when its true full
costs are included in the price, then so be it.
We have a big problem with economics, that is, with the science of economics.
That discipline has not developed the right tools to deal with benefits, i.e.
saving the world as a fit place for human habitation, which are in the distance
future as against heavy upfront costs to achieve those benefits. Yes, we have a
variety of financial formulas, but they just don't give us a handle on the
problem. Because economists can't figure this out, the rest of society
flails about looking at pieces of the problem without bringing the entire issue
into focus.Economists must develop the tools. They aren't
Hey Jay, what is more important . . . a rise of a few cents per kWh in your
electricity bill, or clean air? Huh? 9.98 cents a kWh? In Meblourne
Australia, greatest city in the world to live in, according to Forbes and the
Economist, they pay up to 39 cents a kWh.
"The nature and pace of observed climate changes—and an emerging
scientific consensus on their projected consequences—pose severe
risks for our national security. During our decades of experience in the
U.S. military, we have addressed many national security challenges, from
containment and deterrence of the Soviet nuclear threat during the Cold
War to political extremism and transnational terrorism in recent years.
The national security risks of projected climate change are as serious as
any challenges we have faced."CNA Military Advisory Board
Tea-Publicans cry about ONE failed Corporation and the executives who took the
money and ran with Solyndra costing taxpayers $200 million.While
completely ignoring the $25 BILLION - that's with a captiol letter
"B" - that the same Governmnet gives to Oil corporations each and every
year! -- that's 25 times more each and every year for dirty air and dirty
technolgy -- without a peep from the whiners on the right.BTW -- Petroleum Oil was more expensive in the beginning than Whale blubber was at
the time.Good thing the Progressives 100+ years ago ignored the
Whaling Industy and Whale oil salesmen...
Somebody asked if the liberals were happy. Well, as somebody who would have
been considered a conservative Republican in the 1980's (now I would be
called a RINO or a socialist/moderate or a traitor), I am also happy about what
the President did. We need to work on the big problems of the age. Climate
change is THE big problem. Right now, Congress complains and does nothing.
Nobody but the President has done anything about, well, anything in the past 6
years. If Congress would re-engage in governance, maybe the Republican party
could again make impactful contributions to our way of life.
Liberals, are you happy now? Yup. Cheapest isn't always the lowest
cost. Not in this case.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments