When Cuba Gooding Jr. made famous the phrase “Show Me the Money” in the movie Jerry McGuire, we all latched on and use it in so many ways. The truth is; it is the truth. It is always about the money. The discussion about environmental policy even ends up with the money.
The dilemma for environmentalists has always been they didn’t have enough money to pay for what they needed so they’ve been trying to figure out how to get it from you and me.
One problem is that energy is still too cheap to change our behavior (enough to satisfy them). What we learned last year was that when gas got to $4.00 per gallon or more, it got your attention and you started to change your behavior since it was quickly consuming your discretionary budget.
That fact got the attention of the “Green Movement” Regulators (GMR). They have always wondered about your tolerance for price increases before you blinked. Now they know.
The GMRs have always been distressed that they didn’t have the leverage to change your behavior. My, my, my, the worm is turning.
If you thought you could reduce your cash flow for gas by changing your driving habits, you are partly right, but it will only be temporary. The GMRs now know how high to price energy so it changes your behavior but doesn’t quite break the bank. They will come after that money and more, very soon. By manipulating the market through taxes and fees they will raise the price you pay for energy.
Another problem they have to deal with is the high differential cost of alternative energy. Bio-fuels need to sell for $4.50 per gallon or more to be profitable. Solar, wind and tidal energy generators only crack the nut when user prices hit $.15 to $.18 per Kilowatt hour. You won’t embrace alternatives if traditional sources remain where they are today. That will have to change.
Most forms of alternative energy cost much more than what we are accustomed to in our market. Alternative sources for electrical will be much higher than our traditional hydro power. Solar, wind and tidal are all great ideas, but none are practical when we have existing resources at much cheaper cost.
None of that will matter if they raise the price for hydro-electric supplies to $.15 per KWH and justify the increase with the rationale that we have been enjoying a windfall for too long already and the “subsidy” we have been receiving from the federal government from their investments in the hydro-electric dams must end.
In Snohomish County, transportation polluters represent almost 2/3 of the total carbon emitted. So efforts to reduce carbon emissions in other segments will only produce miniscule benefits. That doesn’t mean they will give up trying to reduce emissions in those areas, but at the end of the exercise the gains will be marginally successful but who knows how much they will cost. Nobody ever does meaningful cost analysis for these programs. We need to start.
Clearly the focus in Snohomish County will be to reduce the transportation related carbon emissions and for most of us that means zeroing in on our personal vehicles. We all know how diesel busses, trains and eighteen wheelers are “diesel stinky” so the focus on them makes sense because the pollution is so evident. And since most of us don’t operate diesel vehicles, picking on those poor suckers makes perfect sense.
Don’t think for a minute that there isn’t a target on your chest as well. The GMRs are scheming to raise the gas tax to a point where you change your behavior with the idea that the windfall should come to our government instead of a foreign oil company. Small consolation for American consumers. We are destined to pay $4.00 for a gallon of gas for “national security” reasons.
The rationale is that if we keep consumption lower, crude oil prices stay lower. If crude oil prices stay lower oil exporting countries collect less revenue and ultimately have less to spend on things like terrorism. The only way to keep oil consumption low is to keep the price to consumers high. We can either pay the differential to our government or to their government but it is pretty clear that we will be paying.
I hate being so pessimistic about this environment thing but I don’t see an easy fix for any of us. As a candidate for county council I would hope to inject an appeal for accountability into the debate. At this point most of us have no confidence in the accuracy of the claims for benefits. We have been lured into agreeing to a dubious strategy because of overstated benefits and understated costs in the past and this is pretty much the same story.
It may be that if we know the real cost of achieving legitimate goals we will still reject the plan, but maybe not. In order to make good decisions, we need good information. I don’t believe we have been presented the whole story because our predicted reaction would not be the preferred reaction. When was the last time you heard of a government proposal that delivered everything it promised at the start at anywhere near the estimated cost? That is where we are on this Climate Change and Global Warming issue. No accountability for anything.
We need to start working on that accountability thing so citizens can have confidence that their leaders are not deceiving them. (that is a euphemism for lying)
As a community we must determine how much change is necessary to achieve reasonable results and balance that with how we plan to pay for it. Reasonable results for a reasonable price should be our goal.
I would like you to be able to “show me the money” you are saving by not being taken to the cleaners by unsubstantiated claims. Then you can show me the money you have for you and your families to spend or invest based upon your choices.
Posted on May 11, 2009 at 11:51 am in Environmental, Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Snohomish County Political Commentary | RSS feed
|
Reply |
Trackback URL
No Loss for Words
Show Me the Money
by Steve DanaWhen Cuba Gooding Jr. made famous the phrase “Show Me the Money” in the movie Jerry McGuire, we all latched on and use it in so many ways. The truth is; it is the truth. It is always about the money. The discussion about environmental policy even ends up with the money.
The dilemma for environmentalists has always been they didn’t have enough money to pay for what they needed so they’ve been trying to figure out how to get it from you and me.
One problem is that energy is still too cheap to change our behavior (enough to satisfy them). What we learned last year was that when gas got to $4.00 per gallon or more, it got your attention and you started to change your behavior since it was quickly consuming your discretionary budget.
That fact got the attention of the “Green Movement” Regulators (GMR). They have always wondered about your tolerance for price increases before you blinked. Now they know.
The GMRs have always been distressed that they didn’t have the leverage to change your behavior. My, my, my, the worm is turning.
If you thought you could reduce your cash flow for gas by changing your driving habits, you are partly right, but it will only be temporary. The GMRs now know how high to price energy so it changes your behavior but doesn’t quite break the bank. They will come after that money and more, very soon. By manipulating the market through taxes and fees they will raise the price you pay for energy.
Another problem they have to deal with is the high differential cost of alternative energy. Bio-fuels need to sell for $4.50 per gallon or more to be profitable. Solar, wind and tidal energy generators only crack the nut when user prices hit $.15 to $.18 per Kilowatt hour. You won’t embrace alternatives if traditional sources remain where they are today. That will have to change.
Most forms of alternative energy cost much more than what we are accustomed to in our market. Alternative sources for electrical will be much higher than our traditional hydro power. Solar, wind and tidal are all great ideas, but none are practical when we have existing resources at much cheaper cost.
None of that will matter if they raise the price for hydro-electric supplies to $.15 per KWH and justify the increase with the rationale that we have been enjoying a windfall for too long already and the “subsidy” we have been receiving from the federal government from their investments in the hydro-electric dams must end.
In Snohomish County, transportation polluters represent almost 2/3 of the total carbon emitted. So efforts to reduce carbon emissions in other segments will only produce miniscule benefits. That doesn’t mean they will give up trying to reduce emissions in those areas, but at the end of the exercise the gains will be marginally successful but who knows how much they will cost. Nobody ever does meaningful cost analysis for these programs. We need to start.
Clearly the focus in Snohomish County will be to reduce the transportation related carbon emissions and for most of us that means zeroing in on our personal vehicles. We all know how diesel busses, trains and eighteen wheelers are “diesel stinky” so the focus on them makes sense because the pollution is so evident. And since most of us don’t operate diesel vehicles, picking on those poor suckers makes perfect sense.
Don’t think for a minute that there isn’t a target on your chest as well. The GMRs are scheming to raise the gas tax to a point where you change your behavior with the idea that the windfall should come to our government instead of a foreign oil company. Small consolation for American consumers. We are destined to pay $4.00 for a gallon of gas for “national security” reasons.
The rationale is that if we keep consumption lower, crude oil prices stay lower. If crude oil prices stay lower oil exporting countries collect less revenue and ultimately have less to spend on things like terrorism. The only way to keep oil consumption low is to keep the price to consumers high. We can either pay the differential to our government or to their government but it is pretty clear that we will be paying.
I hate being so pessimistic about this environment thing but I don’t see an easy fix for any of us. As a candidate for county council I would hope to inject an appeal for accountability into the debate. At this point most of us have no confidence in the accuracy of the claims for benefits. We have been lured into agreeing to a dubious strategy because of overstated benefits and understated costs in the past and this is pretty much the same story.
It may be that if we know the real cost of achieving legitimate goals we will still reject the plan, but maybe not. In order to make good decisions, we need good information. I don’t believe we have been presented the whole story because our predicted reaction would not be the preferred reaction. When was the last time you heard of a government proposal that delivered everything it promised at the start at anywhere near the estimated cost? That is where we are on this Climate Change and Global Warming issue. No accountability for anything.
We need to start working on that accountability thing so citizens can have confidence that their leaders are not deceiving them. (that is a euphemism for lying)
As a community we must determine how much change is necessary to achieve reasonable results and balance that with how we plan to pay for it. Reasonable results for a reasonable price should be our goal.
I would like you to be able to “show me the money” you are saving by not being taken to the cleaners by unsubstantiated claims. Then you can show me the money you have for you and your families to spend or invest based upon your choices.
Rate this:
Share this:
Related
Posted on May 11, 2009 at 11:51 am in Environmental, Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Snohomish County Political Commentary | RSS feed | Reply | Trackback URL