For that reason, I decided I’d report on ways in which we can control our utility and gasoline bills. I promised to keep an eye on the cost-effectiveness of solutions, and occasionally provide insight into options that may stray a bit more out of the mainstream for the more fanatical energy reducers out there.
After all, saving money is generally a universal desire, and doing so while saving energy has a lot of nice side effects, regardless of your politics.
Regardless, I’ve had a few friends suggest that I need to be more opinionated in my blogging. They suggest interspersing a well articulated opinion on occasion. Opinion drives a loyal readership, they say.
I’ve given this a lot of thought and to date have decided to hold the line and stick to my original plan with one exception – today’s post.
Why? Well, the following surprising email received causes me to simultaneously question and validate my points above.
Email text (left unedited):
I just red your blog and wanted to know which liberal organization you work for? Media propaganda. Why should I be told what light bulb to use and how much gas I use – where’s my freedom? The ony reason prices go up is gov regulation and taxes. Go back to 1920 regs and we’ll go back to $1 gas and affordable electricity. Spew your propaganda to your friends, not to me.
I felt compelled to respond to this at the risk of ‘feeding a troll’ and deviating from my original mission for this site. At the same time, it reinforces my belief that saving money is apolitical, and saving energy is one way to do it – and it has many indisputable benefits. Thus, saving energy is apolitical.
Granted, this is one email. In fact, it was odd that this response was sent via email, and not as a comment to a post. I’m not sure what that means in terms of sincerity – less sincere “trolls” tend to publically post comments to spark a reaction, so I think this email is based in a sincere belief of the sender. It potentially shows the tip of the iceberg when talking about these issues in today’s polarized world.
So let’s take a minute and dissect this email.
Sender:
“I just red [sic] your blog and wanted to know which liberal organization you work for? Media propaganda.”
My Response:
For many people, such as this emailer, it is much easier to assume people you disagree with have a hidden agenda or are part of a conspiracy rather than have an open mind and pursue intelligent discourse. If you believe everything is a conspiracy, as he/she implied, then you can readily dismiss any argument, no matter how many facts support it.
I truly hope that opinions like this person’s are the minority, but reviewing the comments on any energy related story posted to sites like Yahoo! and local newspapers gives an impression that this sort of “rationalization” is not uncommon.
And I find it very sad that saving energy is thought to be a ‘liberal agenda’. Saving energy can be cost effective for you, in some cases turning nice 5, 10, or even 20% returns on investment. It reduces dependency on foreign oil, reduces the need to expand costly infrastructure, reduces our burning of fuels that pollute, reduces the need to encroach on environmentally sensitive areas, and reduces carbon emissions.
Sender:
“Why should I be told what light bulb to use and how much gas I use – where’s my freedom?”
My Response:
Who is telling you what light bulb to buy? I’ve reviewed the pros and cons of incandescent, halogen, CFL, and LED, and even ESL on this site. I’ve made some brand suggestions and suggestions as to where a LED or CFL may provide the most benefit – quantifying the savings when possible. I think you still can choose from any bulb they have at the store.
Given the email tone, it is more likely you are saying the government is telling you which bulb to buy. In reality, the government has made a requirement that efficiency be improved by certain percentage-based benchmarks. Any technology that meets the efficiency requirement is viable. Further, the benchmarks appear specifically crafted to allow Halogen to remain an option for many applications. This is an important note because Halogen, while more efficient that incandescent, is still not very efficient. This inclusion allows for plenty of consumer choice that is often overlooked, and results in many thinking legislation has not gone far enough.
Sender:
“The ony [sic] reason prices go up is gov regulation and taxes. Go back to 1920 regs and we’ll go back to $1 gas and affordable electricity.”
My Response:
First, this is an unsupportable claim. There is no way to know how the market would adjust to those sorts of changes to regulations. And generalization like “1920 regulations” is impossible to nail down anyway.
Second, arguments like this tend to forget about indirect and unintended consequences. Let’s not even consider global warming, endangered species, and ecosystem impacts, because I am assuming you feel those are all bogus concerns. Then consider this – it is almost certain that energy exploration and development with “1920’s” regulations would result in more on-the-job deaths and injuries (think coal mine accidents, Hoover Dam deaths, etc). Insurance premiums for those companies would go up, lawsuits would go up, and people would be losing their lives. Not only would there be unintended cost increases (insurance, lawsuits, etc), but there would be increased worker compensation requirements and worker revolt if things got too bad.
From a ‘free market’ standpoint, consider the fact that acid rain would drastically increase if you removed smog regulations and coal power plant scrubbers. Suddenly farm yields would drop when much of the country becomes unsuitable for growing crops. Food prices would spike.
And remember, population is growing and demand is growing. Supply and demand dictate prices will go up as demand goes up, so good luck seeing $1 gas with an almost 7 billion population.
Further, if energy efficiency was not regulated there would be significantly more demand on our already out-dated and fragile electric grid. I’m not talking about power generation, but the distribution system that delivers that power to our homes. How does that grid largely get developed, maintained, and protected? That’s right – largely from the government.
Sender:
“Spew your propaganda to your friends, not to me.”
My Response:
Well, just a few words ago you were questioning where your freedom was. I suppose that same freedom you desire can’t be extended to me in my writing?
And I think I addressed the propaganda claim above (it is much easier to assume people you disagree with have a hidden agenda or are part of a conspiracy rather than have an open mind and pursue intelligent discourse).
In Conclusion…
I know, I’m at risk of ‘feeding the troll’ with this response. It will be interesting to see if this person decides to comment on this post or not. I suspect not if they are sincere in their request to ‘stop spewing propaganda’ to them because they would have tuned me out by now.
And with that, back to your regularly scheduled Home Power Saver posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment