Who has the best lights in town? Vote now for your favorite in our holiday lights contest.
High electric bills and the last gubernatorial debate in today’s letters to the editor.
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
Tommy Smith (“Choose the candidate who favors low bills”) does a great job appealing to peoples’ WALLETS, so maybe we can take it to a logical extreme without worrying about Earth’s future climate and environment at all.
For instance, there is no doubt that coal is a much cheaper (if non-renewable) energy source than newfangled, futuristic sources like solar and wind. Certainly we could lower energy bills by cancelling any investment in renewable energy sources. After all, even though the fossil fuels will eventually dwindle away, hey, that’s something for FUTURE generations to worry about, not US!
Some people may remember those Walker Machinery billboards that read, “Yes, COAL. Clean, carbon-neutral COAL.” But you don’t see those billboards anymore, probably because the coal industry realized that to make coal clean and carbon-neutral would be expensive. Carbon capture and sequestration remains a technological pipedream, and even it could be deployed today, it would raise electric bills. So let’s not worry about, OK? It’s far cheaper to just let those billions of tons of carbon to go straight up into the atmosphere. Even if it means melting icecaps, retreating glaciers, and dwindling fresh water supplies, at least your electric bill will be smaller!
Hey, wanna know how to make coal even cheaper? Just stop scrubbing those particulates out of coal smoke! I mean, when given a choice between clean air and prosperity, I’m sure most people would choose PROSPERITY. I just hope they don’t use all that extra money to invest in beachfront property.
I suppose people COULD lower their energy bills by conserving energy whenever possible: Lowering the thermostat a bit more in winter, raising it a bit more in summer, investing in EnergyStar appliances, and maybe trading in those huge, gas-guzzling luxury SUVs for something more efficient, but that would be so darned inconvenient, wouldn’t it? And when it comes to luxury and being able to squander as much energy as possible, well isn’t that your God-given RIGHT? Aren’t you WORTH IT?
By all means, if your personal comfort and convenience is more important to you than good environmental stewardship, PLEASE vote for Ken Cuccinelli.
Hmmmmmm…where to begin?
Yeah that’s right Chuck..anyone caring about huge increases in heating and lighting costs, heck food and gasoline, cares not a wit about the environment. Salvation can and will only be found in jacking up the cost of fossil fuel energy production so that wind and solar look a little less stupid. I mean it’s all about CO2 emissions as the science is settled.
Don’t look now but those melting ice caps? Aren’t.
Worried about beachfront property? 6 inches of rising tides over the last 100+ years..COMING OUT OF A MINI ICE AGE!!
Lower the thermostat, insulate, curly q light bulbs, energy efficient appliances..we’re doing all that Chuck. Sorry we didn’t/couldn’t wait for you to tell us..we jumped the gun.
Squandering energy..a God -given right? It should be- but some in different levels of government are beginning to think other wise.
And so far as the impact on the future generations… as our gov sees fit to subsidize and squander $$$ on alternate forms of energy..modalities the nation does not want..we just blew by $17 trillion in debt. True concern regarding future generations would manifest itself in growing our economy to generate revenues to handle these obligations and not hamstringing it with higher energy costs built on a man made global warming theory looking less credible with each passing year.
Bud, this should help with your misunderstanding about the ice caps recovery: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10248
It retreats and grows in cycles–2012 was a record low, and this year, as predicted, it would grow. But, despite it regaining 60% of it 2005 level (the 2005 level is about HALF of its level in 1980), it is still trending in decline.
If you want to get all your scientific data from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, I suppose that’s your business. But the effects of human industrial activity and deforestation on the climate? Ever-increasing CO2 emissions and ever-fewer trees to sequester that carbon? Yes, the science most certainly IS settled.
yeah the science is settled…
it’s the models that are being proven incorrect.
This is ALL part and parcel of making business king of this nation. It costs THEM too much money to make energy cleaner so it has to be sold to us as OUR sacrifice and OUR wallet because that is also the beauty of their plan. What costs them will cost us. Their fight becomes our fight. Their millions (and billions) must be secured, no matter what it costs us. They can afford the best medical care. They can afford to move to where there is better air..for now. They only care about money – - especially the energy industry political money in their coffers, but like always, we have to pay.
Name is required
A valid email is required (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.All fields are required to comment.
Wed, 18 Dec 2013 14:06:31 +0000