Low-Hanging Fruit
Green Policy We Can Believe In
show comments
  • rheddles

    Consuming less energy saves money and reduces environmental impacts

    That depends on how long it takes to payback the initial investment and what the environmental impacts of the initial investment were. I don’t know anything about this bill, but nothing here persuades me either way.

    • Andrew Allison

      I’ve installed solar hot water and carefully studied the “benefits”. Even with large Federal, State, and Utility subsidies which paid most of the cost, it took about five years to recover the cost (not including the foregone income on the investment). What it overlooked is that the taxpayers and ratepayers who involuntarily funded most of the capital cost received no benefit whatsoever. Same for solar power and appliances (I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the ratepayers of my water utility, who paid 2/3 of the price of the new clothes washer I bought last year).

      • Jim__L

        Government of the philosopher kings, by the philosopher kings, turns into government for the philosopher kings much to easily — and perhaps predictably.

        The only winners here are the Greens, and they win very little aside from the satisfaction of imposing their views on everyone else.

  • Jim__L

    It’s OK as long as the changes don’t make affected devices less effective. From low-flow toilets to energy-“efficient” appliances, having to run jobs two or three times to get them done is not efficiency.

  • Paul Nelson

    Good grief, Walter! Self interest on the part of tenants (I’m one) and landlords assures the most logical and appropriate degree of conservation! Unless by some yet unachieved brilliance, the legislators and bureaucrats can surpass the market. With electricity at 12 cnts/kwh, gas at $6/mm BTU, gasoline at $4/gal., who needs Washington to tell them to conserve?! Not surprised by the votes of the dems, but why on earth would so many R’s support another nanny state dictate? Crony capitalists all the way down.

  • Richard T

    The private sector is already doing this. Last year, I bought a desk lamp at Wal-Mart. It came with a bulb … an energy-saving mini fluorescent, and yes, this was before the law against incandescent bulbs went into force. Too bad so many greens also hate Wal-Mart.

    Don’t forget that utilities are usually allowed to recoup the cost of building new plant from all of their customers, not just the ones whose increased demand made the new plant necessary. IOW if my neighbours install electrically heated saunas, my electric bill will go up, so having them pay part of the cost of my new fridge seems like rough justice.

    Just to be clear, I do agree that the cost of decommissioning old plant may be spread over all subscribers, since we can all be presumed to have used its output.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.