Re: Walking gently - what does it take? | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Kay Argyle (kay.argyle![]() |
|
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 17:16:18 -0700 (PDT) |
The question of what costs, financial or otherwise, should be considered, cuts to the heart of many discussions. For instance, building a house with a gray-water system uses extra resources; isn't that wasteful? Why even discuss how to get a permit to do so? Honestly, all that extra PVC is so environmentally unsound. >From a narrow economic point of view, a gray-water system doesn't make sense; the decrease in the monthly water bill may not pay for the plumbing in the time one owns the house, and unless everyone does it, the reduction in one's share of the indirect costs, such as chlorine released into the environment, water diverted from natural bodies, and municipal taxes to build and operate water treatment plants, is pretty minute. (This is unfortunately theoretical; Utah doesn't allow gray-water systems.) The division of direct/indirect costs results in some really perverse market forces. The actual cost of water in Utah would be a big incentive to conserve. It would also interfere with economic growth. Therefore, the state heavily subsidizes water projects. Water is unnaturally cheap. So the second driest state in the union has the second highest per capita water use. (This refers to treated water, of course; a lawn takes as much water in Portland as Salt Lake, but in Portland it's irrigated with the form of untreated water known as "rain".) In mature industries, a lower price may in fact reflect more-efficient use of energy and/or commodities such as copper, corn, timber, or petroleum; or it may reflect savings from union-busting, evading PM10 controls, or a below-market bid to clear-cut a national forest, at the hidden indirect costs of polluted water sheds, high local rates of asthma, or full-time workers needing food banks and charity medical clinics. A new more-efficient technology typically doesn't replace old technology with paid-off infrastructure until the former's lower operating cost recoups its startup costs (including research) - which can take a long time. The steelplant where my dad worked withstood forty years of competition from newer plants with more-efficient basic oxygen or electric arc furnaces. A couple of years ago, the seventy-year-old open-hearth furnace was finally sold to a plant in China, where it will make money again, because its owners won't have to pay for smokestack scrubbers or unionized labor with a decent standard of living. Low demand for new (or old but not widely adopted) technology leaves a pricey niche market. If demand grows, however, more suppliers get into the business, supply grows, and the price drops. The technology gets refined with greater use, and the price drops further. If I pay a premium ($2 per 100 kWh block, I think) to Rocky Mountain Power for their commitment to use that money to acquire new sources of renewable energy, RMP then signs a contract with a company building a wind farm, instead of with a company building a coal-fired plant. Contract in hand, the wind farm company can get a loan to build. Some depressed, windy flyspeck on the Wyoming map gets a source of income besides ranching or mining. Order in hand, the wind tower manufacturer expands their assembly line. With a bigger plant, they can build towers more economically. RMP boasts about the success of its Blue Skies program, and another thousand customers join. RMP needs more wind power; the wind farm needs more towers - at the new lower price. The cost of wind-generated electricity starts to undercut that of coal power. Since the rate commission requires RMP to buy the cheapest power (its Blue Skies initiative is a sneaky endrun around the commission), fifteen years from now my conservative anti-environmentalist neighbors will willy-nilly be using "green" wind power. Purchasing choices can thus leverage change. Maybe I personally only get a little of my cost back, in the form of fewer days with bronchitis, or better visibility when I visit Bryce National Park - so? It's an investment in the type of world I want to live in. I think of it like paying taxes; I rarely see a direct benefit from that either - and at least my electric company doesn't start a war in Iraq with my money. Kay Argyle
- Re: Walking gently - what does it take?, (continued)
- Re: Walking gently - what does it take? Catya Belfer-Shevett, July 2 2007
- Re: Walking gently - what does it take? Brian Bartholomew, July 2 2007
- Re: Walking gently - what does it take? Alexander Robin A, July 2 2007
- Re: Walking gently - what does it take? Catya Belfer-Shevett, July 2 2007
- Re: Walking gently - what does it take? Kay Argyle, July 3 2007
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.