The Left Shue
OK, I'm sure I don't have all the information on this, but it seems to me like this story surfaced briefly and was squashed very quickly.
The Bush Administration (doesn't it always start that way??) in its infinite wisdom, and continuing its spotless track record with the Energy people thus far (laughs please) is going to force the Bonneville Power Administration, which sells power to most of the local power stations in the Western Hemisphere by my reckoning, to charge local distributors (like Snohomish PUD) somewhere from 30% to 50% more for power. There is some financial fanaegling (sp?) that boils down to getting the BPA to be less of a government subsidized operation and more of a private operation - in layman's terms (because that's about the only thing I understand right now) the BPA's overhead will come less from federal, state, and local subsidies and more from the pockets of the consumers. The end result (naturally) is that you and I will be paying higher energy rates - rates that our tax dollars were keeping low(er). This isn't going to break the bank for the average consumer - numbers that I've seen say this will result in an average household increase of about $8 a month in energy costs. Of course, something like this means much more to low and fixed income folks, but apparently the hardest hit will be local businesses, for which energy increases will result in much higher bills, and - say economists - will result in the loss of anywhere from 20,000 to 60,000 jobs in the Northwest. Businesses will be forced to trim labor or default on energy bills. Stellar plan - I guess this is where the Bush job plan kicks in - good paying jobs decrease, minimum wage jobs increase. More of the same.
Now here's my wish (other than somebody shedding more light on this situation for me):
Those jobs that are lost as a result of this forced privatization (which is really what it is concerning the BPA) are all jobs of people who voted for Bush. Not in a mean-spirited way. Just in a way that secures the Maria Cantwell's Senate seat in 2006 (not necessarily for her, but for some worthy Democrat - they are in short supply lately.)
SR
Mike's Blog Round Up
44 minutes ago
2 comments:
Note that folks who heat (and cool) using electricity are going to see a much higher monthly increase. The $8 figure is likely based on ALL customers (could even include infrequently used cabins). For a more realistic figure folks should just look at their average monthly bill and multiply it by 1.3 - 1.5.
As to whether it's proper that Bush can instruct such an increase... BPA was a federally funded project, so I guess there's that hook (this should be a warning to anyone who thinks that solutions from the federal level don't come with strings attached).
With energy supply decreasing world-wide, it doesn't behoove us to force prices low, as doing so assures us that we'll consume such resources faster (look up Jevons Paradox) and that we'll subsidize the costs through wars and other externalities.
I recently attended a passive solar home design course at the UW, at which I commented to a woman there that I'm considering going off-grid. She asked me whether I really wanted to accept a reduced standard of living, to which I replied that it's a standard (living off grid) that the majority of the world's population lives by. And this is the point: we're living at levels of living that are grossly high vis a vis energy.
Get used to higher energy costs, Bush or no Bush.
For possible solutions see:
http://www.snohomishobserver.com/ADDITIONAL%20FILES/Sustainable%20Schools.pdfhttp://www.dfasnohomish.org/Article2.asp?CID=194
OK, now here's another point where I don't understand "progressive" political philosophy.
SoulRebel posts, somewhat bitterly, in complaint of the idea that "BPA's overhead will come less from federal, state, and local subsidies and more from the pockets of consumers." Is it "progressive" to believe that you should get something without paying for it? Consumers are exactly the people who should pay for production, because they are the ones who benefit from production.
Then, Mark Nagel comments: "With energy supply decreasing world-wide, it doesn't behoove us to force prices low, as doing so assures us that we'll consume such resources faster." And later: "She asked me whether I really wanted to accept a reduced standard of living, to which I replied that it's a standard (living off grid) that the majority of the world's population lives by."
See, now how am I supposed to read this except in some Ayn Rand kind of way -- "progressives" aren't terribly interested in raising the standard of living for everyone in the world, they prefer to reduce the standard of living for those of us that are relatively well off.
That kind of reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator mentality ends up with everyone back as subsistence hunter-gatherers, starving to death and dying of old age in our mid-20s.
Passive solar home design? A terrific idea. Conservation of energy? Excellent. But cheering on high energy prices to suit your "reduce resource consumption" agenda?
By the way, I did look up Jevons Paradox on the Wikipedia:
"Jevons Paradox is sometimes seen as a reason to not increase efficiency (if resource x is not used here, it will simply be used elsewhere). While true, this does not take into account benefits the resource could generate for other customers, eg. a more efficient steam engine meant many more people could travel."
You seem all-to-willing to deny other people the benefits the resource could generate.
Post a Comment