Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


News Flash:

Area man vows to crusade for a cleaner environment, but refuses to
sacrifice any of his own personal habits in the name of said cleaner
envinonment.

Really??? What do you know of my habits with regard to resources?

Man is said to be meeting with other limousine liberals in a campaign to
blast owners of SUV's, while being driven around in equally fuel
inefficient vehicles, and to point fingers at the electric power
industry's poor record of emissions, while offering no reliable or less
costly alternatives.

Really? What do I drive, Dave?

And, please explain EXACTLY how you came up with the fantasy that there are
no "reliable alternatives" for electric utilities (when, in fact, there are,
and they've off-the-shelf items). And, "less costly".....less than what? On
the scale of expenditures with "free" on one end and "this'll put us out of
business" on the other, where do these off-the-shelf alternatives fall,
Dave.

Hint: "I don't know" is not a permissible answer, since you've already made
statements which suggest that you DO know.

In a drunken rage it is alleged, that when asked about the impact of the
costs of a cleaner environment on the lower wage earners of the country,
he retorted "Screw the poor. We only care about the poor when they bring
us votes".

Please explain how much of a rate increase will occur due to the
installation of the aforementioned off-the-shelf items, and tell us where
you got this rate increase information.


I'm not answering any of this until you answer my questiuon of just how
much you are willing to give up in order to achieve your level of a
"clean" environment.

Dave

Harry Krause wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

Bill Cole wrote:

Does anyone else see the irony in this post?


Yea. It's called "look in the mirror". Harry that is....


Dave



You can high-five with all the other right-wing trash all you like. It
still doesn't change the fact that most of your posts are right-wing
lunatic fringe, simple-minded and programmed.

And until you can respond with substantive points, reasoned debate, and
rational thoughts instead of ad-hominem tripe, then "It still doesn't
change the fact that most of your posts are left-wing lunatic fringe,
simple-minded and programmed".

Dave

Calif Bill wrote:

Other than the RW, describes your posts completely!

And that't the humorous irony of it all. Harry is exactly the same as
those he accuses. He's simply the flip side of the same coin.

Dave

Doug Kanter wrote:


I now pay $35-$50 per month for electricity. I'd pay $100-$150 before I'd
write my senators and ask for an explanation. Keep in mind, however, that
ANY number you choose, and any comment about whether the poor can afford
clean power are 100% irrelevant, since you have NO clue as to how much a
typical electric generating plant in Ohio would pay for cleaner equipment,
and for how many years it would affect their balance sheet in a major way.

But suffice to say that it WILL cost more than nothing at all. What that
exact figure is, is not important. The fact that everyone's electric
bill WILL go up as a result, is.

Dave

"-rick-" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote ...
"Dave Hall" wrote

I'm not answering any of this until you answer my questiuon of just
how
much you are willing to give up in order to achieve your level of a
"clean" environment.

I now pay $35-$50 per month for electricity. I'd pay $100-$150 before
I'd
write my senators and ask for an explanation. Keep in mind, however,
that
ANY number you choose, and any comment about whether the poor can afford
clean power are 100% irrelevant, since you have NO clue as to how much a
typical electric generating plant in Ohio would pay for cleaner
equipment,
and for how many years it would affect their balance sheet in a major
way.


In front of me is a brochure from PGE detailing options for electrical
sources.

For 99% pollution free renewable sources (wind and geothermal), the cost
is an extra $0.29/day for the average household consumption level.

For "Clean Wind" the rate is $3.50 / 100kWh unit.

http://www.portlandgeneral.com/home/...er/default.asp

-rick-

Anything in the brochure about the cost of retrofitting a coal burning plant
with the latest in smokestack filtering equipment? That's the real problem
in places like Ohio, where plants are belching out the worst crap, which
blows East.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:


I now pay $35-$50 per month for electricity. I'd pay $100-$150 before
I'd
write my senators and ask for an explanation. Keep in mind, however,
that
ANY number you choose, and any comment about whether the poor can afford
clean power are 100% irrelevant, since you have NO clue as to how much a
typical electric generating plant in Ohio would pay for cleaner
equipment,
and for how many years it would affect their balance sheet in a major
way.

But suffice to say that it WILL cost more than nothing at all. What that
exact figure is, is not important. The fact that everyone's electric
bill WILL go up as a result, is.

Dave



Are you saying that you are willing to pay no increase of any kind, to
provide your children with a cleaner world? Zero? Zip? Yes or no question.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:


I now pay $35-$50 per month for electricity. I'd pay $100-$150
before
I'd
write my senators and ask for an explanation. Keep in mind, however,
that
ANY number you choose, and any comment about whether the poor can
afford
clean power are 100% irrelevant, since you have NO clue as to how
much a
typical electric generating plant in Ohio would pay for cleaner
equipment,
and for how many years it would affect their balance sheet in a
major
way.

But suffice to say that it WILL cost more than nothing at all. What
that
exact figure is, is not important. The fact that everyone's electric
bill WILL go up as a result, is.

Dave



Are you saying that you are willing to pay no increase of any kind, to
provide your children with a cleaner world? Zero? Zip? Yes or no
question.

Certainly I am willing to kick in a little more. But not nearly what was
proposed by the kyoto summit, when the subject of global warming and
other environmental impact was discussed, and proposals along the line
of increasing fuel costs as a method to "dissuade" people from using
fossil fuels.

The effect on the economy would be widespread and devestating....

Not if it were focused on areas where ELECTIVE use was predominant. You DO
know what that means, right? Or do you need help?

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:


I now pay $35-$50 per month for electricity. I'd pay $100-$150
before
I'd
write my senators and ask for an explanation. Keep in mind, however,
that
ANY number you choose, and any comment about whether the poor can
afford
clean power are 100% irrelevant, since you have NO clue as to how
much a
typical electric generating plant in Ohio would pay for cleaner
equipment,
and for how many years it would affect their balance sheet in a
major
way.

But suffice to say that it WILL cost more than nothing at all. What
that
exact figure is, is not important. The fact that everyone's electric
bill WILL go up as a result, is.

Dave



Are you saying that you are willing to pay no increase of any kind, to
provide your children with a cleaner world? Zero? Zip? Yes or no
question.

Certainly I am willing to kick in a little more. But not nearly what was
proposed by the kyoto summit, when the subject of global warming and
other environmental impact was discussed, and proposals along the line
of increasing fuel costs as a method to "dissuade" people from using
fossil fuels.

The effect on the economy would be widespread and devestating....

Not if it were focused on areas where ELECTIVE use was predominant. You DO
know what that means, right? Or do you need help?

Spare me the condescending attitude, and I might enlighten you with a
combination of human nature and free market logic.

Any time you artificially raise the cost of an item (Through a tax or
tariff) you essentially remove it, or reduce its availability, to people
of lesser financial means. So a tax on fuel will become effective at
controlling fuel usage, but based along socio- economic lines. The rich
will just dig a little deeper in their pockets and pay a little more to
continue their lavish lifestyles. While those not so financially well
off, will be forced to abandon or radically change their lifestyles.
This will only add to the rift between the socio-economic classes.

This whole country, and our culture of consumerism, means that a very
big part of our economy is based on elective use (Assuming your context
of the term "elective" means usage which is not necessary). A tax on
fuel would just about put an end to the RV industry, put a damper on
vacations, travel, tourism, etc. Many states (like Florida) raise much
of their working budgets through proceeds from tourism. I'm sure you can
see what would happen if this source was curtailed to any great degree.

Then of course, since the costs to operate a business, and to
manufacture goods, will increase due to taxes on fuel, the obvious
reaction will be a further push to relocate businesses offshore. Surely
you are not in favor of that?

These are only some examples. How many more do you need?

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Certainly I am willing to kick in a little more. But not nearly what
was
proposed by the kyoto summit, when the subject of global warming and
other environmental impact was discussed, and proposals along the line
of increasing fuel costs as a method to "dissuade" people from using
fossil fuels.

The effect on the economy would be widespread and devestating....

Not if it were focused on areas where ELECTIVE use was predominant. You
DO
know what that means, right? Or do you need help?

Spare me the condescending attitude, and I might enlighten you with a
combination of human nature and free market logic.

Any time you artificially raise the cost of an item (Through a tax or
tariff) you essentially remove it, or reduce its availability, to people
of lesser financial means. So a tax on fuel will become effective at
controlling fuel usage, but based along socio- economic lines. The rich
will just dig a little deeper in their pockets and pay a little more to
continue their lavish lifestyles. While those not so financially well
off, will be forced to abandon or radically change their lifestyles.
This will only add to the rift between the socio-economic classes.

This whole country, and our culture of consumerism, means that a very
big part of our economy is based on elective use (Assuming your context
of the term "elective" means usage which is not necessary). A tax on
fuel would just about put an end to the RV industry, put a damper on
vacations, travel, tourism, etc. Many states (like Florida) raise much
of their working budgets through proceeds from tourism. I'm sure you can
see what would happen if this source was curtailed to any great degree.

Then of course, since the costs to operate a business, and to
manufacture goods, will increase due to taxes on fuel, the obvious
reaction will be a further push to relocate businesses offshore. Surely
you are not in favor of that?

These are only some examples. How many more do you need?

Dave



No increases for heating oil. I believe most people have learned that
keeping the house at 79 degrees is not a good idea. For those who have not,
there's nothing that can be done.

No increases for fuel used to move freight.

A poll here (Rochester) about 5 yrs back found that over 65% of commuters
would be happy to use mass transportation, if it existed and was run in a
sensible fashion. There is no reason to believe this city is different from
others, so it's safe to assume people feel this way elsewhere.

Europeans have been dealing with much higher gasoline prices for quite
some time. They adjust and their societies haven't collapsed. Our country
isn't willing to sacrifice jack ****.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Certainly I am willing to kick in a little more. But not nearly what
was
proposed by the kyoto summit, when the subject of global warming and
other environmental impact was discussed, and proposals along the line
of increasing fuel costs as a method to "dissuade" people from using
fossil fuels.

The effect on the economy would be widespread and devestating....

Not if it were focused on areas where ELECTIVE use was predominant. You
DO
know what that means, right? Or do you need help?

Spare me the condescending attitude, and I might enlighten you with a
combination of human nature and free market logic.

Any time you artificially raise the cost of an item (Through a tax or
tariff) you essentially remove it, or reduce its availability, to people
of lesser financial means. So a tax on fuel will become effective at
controlling fuel usage, but based along socio- economic lines. The rich
will just dig a little deeper in their pockets and pay a little more to
continue their lavish lifestyles. While those not so financially well
off, will be forced to abandon or radically change their lifestyles.
This will only add to the rift between the socio-economic classes.

This whole country, and our culture of consumerism, means that a very
big part of our economy is based on elective use (Assuming your context
of the term "elective" means usage which is not necessary). A tax on
fuel would just about put an end to the RV industry, put a damper on
vacations, travel, tourism, etc. Many states (like Florida) raise much
of their working budgets through proceeds from tourism. I'm sure you can
see what would happen if this source was curtailed to any great degree.

Then of course, since the costs to operate a business, and to
manufacture goods, will increase due to taxes on fuel, the obvious
reaction will be a further push to relocate businesses offshore. Surely
you are not in favor of that?

These are only some examples. How many more do you need?

Dave



No increases for heating oil. I believe most people have learned that
keeping the house at 79 degrees is not a good idea. For those who have not,
there's nothing that can be done.

I keep mine at 68.



No increases for fuel used to move freight.

But what about fuel used to power the company or used in the process of
manufacture?

A poll here (Rochester) about 5 yrs back found that over 65% of commuters
would be happy to use mass transportation, if it existed and was run in a
sensible fashion. There is no reason to believe this city is different from
others, so it's safe to assume people feel this way elsewhere.

It would not be cost effective for a municipality to run public
transportation from the "city" out to "the sticks" like where I live.
Besides, I don't work in "the city" either. I run from one suburb to
another. That's part of the problem we are now facing. Many decades of
suburban sprawl, were brought about thanks to the independence that the
automobile has granted us. It allows us to live away from where we work.
But trying to ween us from this lifestyle will not come easy, and will
have financial rammifications. For instance, if measures were put in
place to discourage driving individual cars, the attractiveness of rural
living will decrease along with associated property values. "Urban"
space will increase in value in proportion to the increase in demand,
likely to the point where most middle class people will end up with
little or nothing more than a 2 bedroom flat, for the same cost as their
spacious 4 bedroom suburban home now costs. Of course, where does that
leave the poor? As demand for quality living in the city goes up the
prices will too, and the poor will be forced out and away from the major
job opportunities.


Europeans have been dealing with much higher gasoline prices for quite
some time. They adjust and their societies haven't collapsed.

Europeans have always lived with higher fuel costs, and their societies
have not embraced the automobile in the same fashion as we have. It's a
lot easier for Europeans to make a small adjustment to their already
urbanized living, than it is for Americans, who would have to make
radical changes.


Our country isn't willing to sacrifice jack ****.

Not when it means an end to the lifestyle we've grown accustomed to. If
I were given a choice of living where I am now, and making a 44 mile
commute in my car, versus living in a row home in a city and taking
public transportation to work, I'd opt for what I have now. I never
liked cities, and only financial necessities would force me to move
there (But not without a fight).

Dave