Are you willing to pay 50% more for your electricity?

Question

Climate legislation being introduced on a national level could increase US electricity rates by 50%. Are we willing to pay that amount to minimally reduce carbon emissions? Per year, what would you pay to reduce carbon emissions by less than 1% over the next 30 years?

Answer 1

I've been working to spend 50% less on my electricity bill, so no I don't think I would be willing to increase it by that when we already pay one of the highest rates per kwh in the country.

Answer 2

Building nuclear power plants (say 450 1 GW reactors) would allow for a much greater reduction than 1% per year for about that increase and would also reduce air quality and deaths from mining accidents.

Actually given the cost of natural gas (what those who pay the highest rates are probably getting their power from) it might actually result in cheaper power as well as cleaner (and the health effects of coal to say nothing about global warming cost more than the cost difference between coal and nuclear (or even between coal and solar PV which is about as expensive as they get)).

Answer 3

It is not a point of willing, you pay what you have to, to keep your power on,

just like you pay what you have to at the gas pumps now.

just like we will pay higher taxes when congress decides that they need more money, or a pay raise.

have you noticed that when they raise taxes on the rich, they also raise taxes on the poor?

Answer 4

noway

Answer 5

All for making gullible leftist feel good and sing Kum bye yah.  I don't think so.

Answer 6

The question is not whether someone who is living a comfortable life is willing to pay extra for electricity, but can a poor family afford the extra money.

Answer 7

Looks like we'll find out if the liberals are dumb enough to pass it.  I promise you it won't last long.  

A lot of people in the UK are pissed off that they keep paying for "climate change" and it doesn't have any effect.

Answer 8

That depends on what the result would be.

If my energy came almost entirely from renewable sources, then yes, I would pay 50% more for it.  Absolutely.

Your final question omits an important factor.  Improving our energy sources might reduce *worldwide* carbon emissions by less than 1%.  They would reduce carbon emissions based on US power generation by much more than that.

You could make this kind of argument for any green technology.  Why should I buy a hybrid when it won't reduce global CO2 emissions?  Why should China build a solar plant when it will barely reduce global CO2 emissions?  Why should we build a nuclear power plant when it won't have a significant impact on global CO2 emissions?

When you add up all of these CO2 reductions, it becomes significant.  But if you don't take any of these individual steps, there's nothing to add up.

Answer 9

nope, but we should all get ready for that, especially if obama bin lyin gets elected...

Answer 10

no,i don't want to pay a penny more for a farce

Answer 11

No, but it is in the process of happening as government continues to mandate so-called 'clean' energy use.  Of course, folks in the wind & solar businesses are loving it..... especially those who are the front-end developers.

I'm sure that many of you have seen T. Boone Pickens ad campaign regarding the use of wind power to generate electricity.  He's investing $$Billions into a huge wind farm in Texas..... and he's going to MAKE BILLIONS from ..... you guessed it....the U.S. taxpayer.  How??...... by way of the same sort of ridiculous subsidies that have been and still are being thrown at ethanol, solar and wind power.

And get a load of this excerpt from a Newsweek interview with Pickens:

T. Boone Pickens’s Mighty Wind

Daniel Gross

NEWSWEEK

Updated: 1:29 PM ET Jul 12, 2008

His big idea? Harness the mighty wind that sweeps through his beloved Texas and Oklahoma—and the rest of the Great Plains—and use it to displace natural gas as a fuel for generating electricity.

Of course, it's not that simple. Building the infrastructure to allow for (a) the transmission of electricity from the Great Plains to population centers, and (b) the use of natural gas as a mainstream transportation fuel would require massive investments.

.... he's building a $10 billion wind farm in the Texas panhandle, where he's persuading neighboring ranchers to plant turbines in their fields. But even Pickens isn't averse to the sort of NIMBY-ism ('not in my back yard') that has impeded new energy infrastructure.

"There are no turbines on my ranch, because I think they are ugly."

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/145851

Answer 12

No

Answer 13

Nope, it sounds like a bad idea to me.

When we have to give up our (cars) Mobility due to gas prices - due to Democrats.  

You can use Public Transportation!

When we have to give up our Shelter due to electric prices - due to Democrats.  

You can live in Public Housing!

When we have to give up affordable food due to Ethanol production - due to Democrats.  

You can use Food Stamps!

When we give up ownership of anything due to high taxes - due to Democrats.  

You can be poor!

Now we can  all be good little Democrats.

Welcome to slavery everyone - thanks to the Democrats.

Answer 14

Corbin emissions are needed by our plants to live. Go ahead and eliminate all CO2 and watch the plants die,and then U will die. If the plants don't have CO2 they will not recycle our CO2 into oxygen .. Stop trying to kill us and tax us for it...

Answer 15

Not for long...I'll use my fireplace for heat, cook on the grill, and set up oil lamps before I jump on this bandwagon.