Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So in trying to move forward the environmental/climate debate, what are areas that we can agree on. Off the top of my head I think that the renewable energy movement should actually come off favorable to conservatives. However in practice it does not. So here are some areas where I think that we should be agreeable.
1. Owning your own energy generation.
Shouldn't conservatives be in favor of owning your solar panels for the same reason that they (and everybody else) is in favor of owning their own home? Sure you could rent your own energy, but buying a panel gives you independence. Call it privatization or democratization, we means the same thing.
2. More efficiency/conservation
Conservatives usually are in favor of more efficiency. In order to get there we would have to invest more money into the grid infrastructure in order to make it so. However there seems to be pushback because energy efficiency is more of a liberal bent in this area. However conservation is supposed to be allied with conservatism; efficiency should allow for more conservation.
Difficult areas
What do conservatives think about these areas. Energy prices do not exist in a "market" because of two areas. Externalities & natural monopoly. So if you do not believe in these two, why not?
1. Externalities
Do you not believe that pollution is an externality that should be regulated by government?
2. Monopoly
Do you believe that power line companies should be given monopoly guarantee? I do because, even if not for financial reasons, I think power cables are an externality in terms of visual & land use pollution.
In reality what this means is that no utility should be able to operate both generation & distribution. There is a conflict of interest and the two should be separated. How do conservatives feel about this. Texas has already done this (and with great results). However other places such as Florida haven't.
Shouldn't conservatives be in favor of owning your solar panels for the same reason that they (and everybody else) is in favor of owning their own home? Sure you could rent your own energy, but buying a panel gives you independence. Call it privatization or democratization, we means the same thing.
I am on Solar Power.
I am in favor of everyone going to Solar Power. Regardless of what you wish to call it.
Quote:
... 2. More efficiency/conservation
Conservatives usually are in favor of more efficiency. In order to get there we would have to invest more money into the grid infrastructure in order to make it so.
I am generally in favor of things being more efficient, in terms of reducing waste [less energy waste, less food waste, etc]
The grid infrastructure is private profit-making corporations. They operate to make a profit. I am generally not in favor of raising taxes on everyone, to give money to corporations. They make profits, they can upgrade themselves.
Why should privately owned equipment be upgraded using tax dollars?
Quote:
... However there seems to be pushback because energy efficiency is more of a liberal bent in this area.
Yes. Any area where you can raise taxes is generally popular among liberals. More so when you raise taxes to give the money to corporations.
Quote:
... However conservation is supposed to be allied with conservatism; efficiency should allow for more conservation
Conserving energy is a great idea, but taxing everyone to give money to profitable corporations [who can afford to upgrade on their own] rubs me wrong.
Quote:
... Do you not believe that pollution is an externality that should be regulated by government?
I think that government regulation should be as minimal as possible.
However when one harms another that should be a crime. Hurting your feelings should not be a crime, but hurting others in some real factual context should be a crime. Polluting does generally hurt others. Either you pollute the air so others must breath it, or you pollute the water shed so others must drink the polluted water. These constitute harms done to others and should be crimes.
Quote:
... Do you believe that power line companies should be given monopoly guarantee? I do because, even if not for financial reasons, I think power cables are an externality in terms of visual & land use pollution.
In reality what this means is that no utility should be able to operate both generation & distribution. There is a conflict of interest and the two should be separated. How do conservatives feel about this. Texas has already done this (and with great results). However other places such as Florida haven't.
So why are you not in favor conservatives?
Where I live, one power company owns the lines, and they also provide power. You may pay them to transmit power to you, and you may also pay them for the power. But you may decide to buy the power from some other company that provides power onto the grid.
They have monopoly on the wire, because they are the owners of the wire in the region and there is no other option. If you want to connect to the grid then you must go through them. So they have a monopoly in this area. But they do not have monopoly over generating power.
Let's go through some of the things you said. I don't have a problem with the other things you mentioned.
1. In response to externalities
Quote:
I think that government regulation should be as minimal as possible.
However when one harms another that should be a crime. Hurting your feelings should not be a crime, but hurting others in some real factual context should be a crime. Polluting does generally hurt others. Either you pollute the air so others must breath it, or you pollute the water shed so others must drink the polluted water. These constitute harms done to others and should be crimes.
I know the libertarian response to environmental issues is for litigation. In general I do favor this view in most areas, however not so much for the environment (particularly air quality). Have you ever looked up the economists argument called the tragedy of the commons?
The issue with trying to go your way and simply calling it a crime is that almost everyone is guilty. For example think of a busy city (LA if you will). Everyone with a car, which are in the millions, to some degree adds a slight bit of pollution to the air. Through litigation it will be simply absurd to try to get the millions of small polluters to pay, so it simply is more sensible to regulate cars through catalytic converters and the like. This isn't like your neighbor dumping a bucket of oil on your backyard. You can easily get him since it is obvious who the culprit is and what the damages are. It is impossible to add up the small fraction of each individual polluter, not to mention the fact that you couldn't get it to work out in court. The most practical method is to simply have the large pollution sources be regulated.
2. Next onto monopoly guarantee
Quote:
Where I live, one power company owns the lines, and they also provide power. You may pay them to transmit power to you, and you may also pay them for the power. But you may decide to buy the power from some other company that provides power onto the grid.
They have monopoly on the wire, because they are the owners of the wire in the region and there is no other option. If you want to connect to the grid then you must go through them. So they have a monopoly in this area. But they do not have monopoly over generating power.
From what you said I will guess that you live in someplace like Texas. Because the deregulated model is what they have and that sounds like it. The model is just fine as long as the company that owns the wires cannot be an owner of generation. The issue is not generating at all, only the power lines. You did not say whether or not you agree, but simply that it is a fact. I take it that you agree with the idea that power lines should be given monopoly guarantee. (If you do agree you are giving govt. some power)
3. Now to the issue about upgrading the grid
Quote:
The grid infrastructure is private profit-making corporations. They operate to make a profit. I am generally not in favor of raising taxes on everyone, to give money to corporations. They make profits, they can upgrade themselves.
Why should privately owned equipment be upgraded using tax dollars?
We are now in a quagmire because of monopoly over the wire system. Unlike a normal market, say in smartphones, there is no problem with this at all. If sprint chooses not to upgrade their system, that is fine. It is fine because you have other options and people can compete. (Get Verizon for better service) This is not so when the government gives only one company the ability to supply a service. They no longer have the incentive to be efficient. Why be efficient? Why spend millions or billions of dollars upgrading a system when you won't lose a single customer? The plain fact is that they won't do the upgrades unless the govt. makes them do it. Government monopoly comes with government regulation.
So here is the point. Regardless of whether or not we give them tax dollars, (I don't support it by the way), they will get the money. With a monopoly guarantee over the wires, they have it guaranteed that they will simply charge you the money for the upgrades. What the govt. will do is simply limit the profit making (like they do already).
... From what you said I will guess that you live in someplace like Texas. Because the deregulated model is what they have and that sounds like it. The model is just fine as long as the company that owns the wires cannot be an owner of generation. The issue is not generating at all, only the power lines. You did not say whether or not you agree, but simply that it is a fact. I take it that you agree with the idea that power lines should be given monopoly guarantee. (If you do agree you are giving govt. some power)
I am in Maine.
Our power companies owns the wires and they also generate some of the power. There are also other companies that also generate some of the power going on the grid.
Any company that installs power lines and maintains them should be able to charge for the transmission of power over those lines. I have no problem with that. It is a monopoly because if your town does have power lines, then there is only one set of power lines.
The problem here is that in this state only about 50% of the townships actually have grid power access available to those townships. If you live in a township without power lines, then you must make your own power. Here in my township only about 1/3 of the parcels of land have grid access.
Quote:
... We are now in a quagmire because of monopoly over the wire system. Unlike a normal market, say in smartphones, there is no problem with this at all. If sprint chooses not to upgrade their system, that is fine. It is fine because you have other options and people can compete. (Get Verizon for better service)
That only works if some other cellphone company moves into the area.
I use verizon. Verizon owns the tower so own the signal here. Towns to my East and to my West have no towers, so they have no cellphone signal. The Interstate cuts through our town, that is the only reason that we have a cellphone tower.
To have the option of multiple cellphone carriers you can choose between would first require that multiple cellphone companies must each built towers in your town.
Cellphones have the same monopoly as power companies have. Just like the power grid, towns that have no cellphone towers have no signal.
Companies will only upgrade, if they see profit for doing it, or if the government makes them do it.
As a conservative and conservationist......here are my responses.
Yes, I believe in solar energy. I have a solar house. I use 10% of the electricity that folks on the grid use. So I do believe that EVERYBODY connected to the grid should ALSO reduce their electrical consumption to 10% of current use. Government should make this mandatory.
Conservation......I can see the lights of Seattle, a hundred miles away, at night. To rest my batteries...everything is OFF at night. No outside lights. Why do people in Seattle have the outside lights on at 2:00am!!! Really, put a motion detector on it!!
It is time for urban residents to CONSERVE, no more excuses.
Regulating power companies?? Since we are off-grid we do NOT qualify for all the government tax breaks granted large corporations and those connected to the grid. Really there are 1.5 million people in the US living off-grid and NONE of us get the tax breaks give urban residents. IS THAT FAIR??
There you got me started on the corruption in this country when it comes to electricity!!
Go for it but pay for it yourself. If I wanted too I can generate electric at my house with coal, I don;lt because of the same issues associated with solar. It's going to be very expensive.
Quote:
2. More efficiency/conservation
Certainly but it needs to be practical and cost effective.
Quote:
1. Externalities
Do you not believe that pollution is an externality that should be regulated by government?
Again practical and cost effective. For example the new mercury regulations that prematurely closed many aging coal plants will reduce the mercury deposition rates here in the US an estimated 1 to 10 percent and result in the average IQ increasing an estimated 2/1000 of one point.
Is that practical or cost effective?
Quote:
In reality what this means is that no utility should be able to operate both generation & distribution. There is a conflict of interest and the two should be separated. How do conservatives feel about this. Texas has already done this (and with great results). However other places such as Florida haven't
.
They have done this in Pennsylvania however the distributor is not precluded from offering the electric itself. No one should have any issues with this at all simply because it introduces competition in the market place.
Go for it but pay for it yourself. If I wanted too I can generate electric at my house with coal, I don;lt because of the same issues associated with solar. It's going to be very expensive.
Most Americans are urban, and for most of them the cheapest power they can get is from the grid.
If you have grid access, there is no cheaper method to get electricity.
Any company that installs power lines and maintains them should be able to charge for the transmission of power over those lines. I have no problem with that. It is a monopoly because if your town does have power lines, then there is only one set of power lines.
The problem here is that in this state only about 50% of the townships actually have grid power access available to those townships. If you live in a township without power lines, then you must make your own power. Here in my township only about 1/3 of the parcels of land have grid access.
It is a monopoly because it is ILLEGAL for anyone else to have a set of power lines. This is the entire point of monopoly guarantee on transmission. It is a market distortion and once you agree with it, you must regulate. For those outside of the monopoly guaranteed powerlines, real competition can exist, but not those inside of it. If you believe in the monopoly guarantee, you must be consistent and regulate.
Quote:
To have the option of multiple cellphone carriers you can choose between would first require that multiple cellphone companies must each built towers in your town.
Cellphones have the same monopoly as power companies have. Just like the power grid, towns that have no cellphone towers have no signal.
Cellphone companies do NOT have the same monopoly power companies have. You do have competition within cellphones. There is sprint, Verizon, AT&T etc. Even if a specific area has one provider, there is a major difference. It is NOT illegal for another player to enter the game. Power transmission does not have that same market. You cannot compete against a distribution network without the govt. seizing your assets and punishing you. So for them to simply charge whatever they want is illogical.
Quote:
Companies will only upgrade, if they see profit for doing it, or if the government makes them do it.
This is the problem companies will make a profit REGARDLESS of whether or not they upgrade their systems. It is actually more profitable to not upgrade because it costs money to make the upgrades. This is totally unlike your normal tech company which has to continually upgrade in order to stay above its competition. If cell phone companies do not upgrade, they will lose customers to their competition. If power-transmission utilities do not upgrade, their customers have nowhere to go. It is so ridiculously prohibitive for the average person to buy their own generators for 24-hr power that is effectively a non-starter. (Which is why almost nobody does it once they can be connected to the grid) This is akin to federal taxes. If you don't like the tax-rate you cannot do anything about it. The only serious way of making sure utilities stay efficient is for regulation.
Quote:
They have done this in Pennsylvania however the distributor is not precluded from offering the electric itself. No one should have any issues with this at all simply because it introduces competition in the market place.
Yes we should have issues with this. The idea that you can have anything like fair competition with an entity which has government backed guarantee is absurd. Imagine you own a business and you compete against the government. Would you think that it would be fair to compare you to an entity which has the power to tax? Utilities are GUARANTEED a rate of return by the govt. Even if they make a bad mistake (which they do from time to time), they never can go out of business. This is not like a private company which really does have to work hard in order to stay afloat.
Would you buy that argument when it comes to welfare? Most conservatives make the argument that giving people welfare dampens their desire to want to work harder. Why work hard when the govt. guarantees you a decent living? (Especially at the expense of the taxpayer) Well this is essentially the same argument applied to power utilities.
Issues with what? I can choose who provides the electric itself including the distributor who is usually the cheapest. My bill is split, I pay X amount for transmission to the distributor whether they are providing the electric or some other company.
The monopoly on power lines is unfortunate but it's required. Competition is completely impractical and could only drive costs up. A single company can distribute costs to every customer, if you introduce competition their costs will remain largely unchanged and the burden of those costs fall onto a smaller amount of customers.
Here in Pennsylvania utilities are controlled by the "PUC", some of them have even gone down recently.
Someone mentioned a cell phone tower. Same thing applies there, if you have an area with a low density population a single tower may be profitable. Another company that might want to move into the area is going to find it hard to justify the cost of a tower if they expect a limited amount of people using it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
