Posted on 09/29/2019 6:55:38 AM PDT by cutty
While the climate strike and Greta Thunberg may have the limelight this week, the unwavering truth of climate and energy policy remains: people are unwilling to pay the costs associated with reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
A recent poll from the Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation shows that support for reducing carbon dioxide emissions withers under the slightest bit of scrutiny. The poll shows people favor taxing the wealthy to pay for increasing electricity costs, which is pretty much par for the course on every issue, and raising taxes on energy, even if that leads to higher prices.
...
when people are asked to make a personal sacrifice, support simply evaporates. Indeed, 51 percent of U.S. residents oppose paying a $2 per month tax on their electric bills, and this number climbs to 71 percent opposed when this number increases to a $10 monthly tax.
Its worth noting that electricity bills in Minnesota are already $20 per month higher, in inflation adjusted dollars, and this increase is almost entirely due to spending more than $15 billion on wind turbines and transmission lines, in addition to the costs associated with complying with Minnesotas 1.5 percent solar mandate.
...
the cost of the average electric bill will increase by about $31 more per month if utility companies shut down reliable, affordable coal plants in favor of more expensive and less reliable wind and solar. Furthermore, this additional cost does not account for the higher prices consumers will pay for goods and services as companies try to raise their prices to pay for higher overhead costs.
Once these costs are accounted for, the monthly cost of a 50 percent renewable energy mandate be about $100 per month.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanexperiment.org ...
There is bus service in the relatively flat parts of LA. My take is there no demand for this in the more expensive hilly suburbs.
Same dodge, different recipient. When I worked in Georgia, the power company asked if I'd contribute some small amount to "help the poor pay their power bills". I replied that it just looked like a way for the power company to insure that they got paid.
I suggested a plan we used in California back in the '70s. Low cost loan to extra insulate the house and add a couple of bucks to the bill until it is paid. The savings in power more than paid for the loan.
Never heard back from them.
I pay $7 a month to NOT have a smart meter on my house. Ill run my electricity on my schedule not that of the power company.
Great. The bastards want me to pay $1200/year for nothing. To hell with them.
“Only about 2,000 or 3,000 years ago that little piece of land currently known as “Central Park” (the one in Manhattan) was enveloped in a glacier about 2,000 feet thick.
That glacier vanished into thing air about 2,000 years before the advent of the internal combustion engine.”
Please proofread before posting! Your two sentences are partially contradictory. You say that as recently as maybe 2000 years ago there was a glacier about 2000 feet thick which disappeared 2000 years before advent of the internal combustion engine which happened well under 2000 years later. You seem to have no concern for accuracy. It takes a long time for 2000 feet of ice to melt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.