4 ms·

i agree. but you're also letting the other side of the deal - consumers of energy produced by polluting energy sources - off the hook. the consumers benefit fro

by shoo 10y ago

i agree. but you're also letting the other side of the deal - consumers of energy produced by polluting energy sources - off the hook. the consumers benefit from this state of affairs too.

ivraatiems 10y ago
What are consumers supposed to do? In many places there is no choice; you get the power the single utility company around provides you. It comes from wherever it comes from. Generating your own is not economically feasible for most.
- shoo 10y ago
  if consumers live in a democratic country they need to demand policy change to regulate this. some people frame climate change as an "emergency". politically, it is only an emergency if enough people think it is an emergency and are prepared to vote along these lines. i'd agree it is an emergency. but i don't think a majority of people do - so politically, it isn't an emergency.
  - ivraatiems 10y ago
    That's fair, and a good point.
  - dota_fanatic 10y ago
    It's politically not an emergency because companies with vested interests in maintaining the status quo have invested heavily in disinformation campaigns, basically dominating less-educated citizens through information manipulation via "trusted" news sources, defeating the ideals of the democratic process. Saying people benefit from the status quo of energy is like saying mammals benefit from the status quo of needing oxygen. You don't blame individual mammals for needing oxygen and having no other choice. Especially when other extremely wealthy, organized, and networked mammals are actively working to make sure that that's always the way it's going to be, that status quo being their bread and butter for dominance. You seem to be pointing out what you perceive to be a solution, the political process. Others are saying that that's not a path because it's too much to expect dumb humans (humans in groups of disparate communities, professions, race, religion, etc etc) to be that smart and organized, especially with the adversarial human forces involved. In other words, what point are you trying to make by pointing out that the consumers are benefiting from the arrangement. It's very clear that they are not benefiting, they are only barely getting by, while these companies are drowning in wealth.
- VLM 10y ago
  Here's the solution for two states. I have no information on the other 48 states but presumably some mixture of legislation and taxes and letter writing will take care of it. Generally speaking the heartland is culturally, socially, and technologically ahead of the flyover coasts (which is why they scream so loud about anecdotes to the contrary, LOL) but someday things like this will come to even the backwards coastie states... https://www.we-energies.com/residential/acctoptions/eft.htm https://www.we-energies.com/residential/acctoptions/eft.htm The marketing "Other" is not unicorn droppings or whatever, its nuclear. I think nuclear is cool but their marketing firm thinks otherwise so its called "other". Because the only thing better than one standard, is two standards, in addition to signing up for renewables at your power company, there is a new option which I haven't tried where you sign up at arcadiapower and I think they pay your bill for you and you pay them a bit more and they sell 100% wind power to your local power co along with paying your bill. I would imagine this is greased with some tax credits but this is pure speculation. The extra cost or surcharge of 100% wind provided power in Wisconsin at this time is an extra 1.5 cents per KWh (a bit more than 10% extra). My parents did energy for tomorrow since honestly I donno when, probably the 90s. I have no personal experience with the Arcadia power alternative. I know E4T does commercial power accounts because every vaguely progressive signally retailer or office has their poster up proudly celebrating 100% powered by renewables, its not unusual. I do have a lot of money invested in energy stocks, I'm honest about that. I believe everything about to be factually correct and unimpacted by my investments, however.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- thescriptkiddie 10y ago
  Some utilities have started to offer programs where you can pay extra to purchase 100% renewable energy instead of whatever mix you would otherwise be getting. In areas where that isn't offered, you can still buy carbon offset credits.
WorldMaker 10y ago
That assumes that consumers have an active purchasing power in how their energy is produced. How as a consumer do you switch the source of your energy? You could maybe move to a cleaner energy state, but even then the grid is highly intertwined and the differences may not be worth the expense and carbon output of the move itself. You could also protest/campaign/write-letters to your states public utilities boards and maybe make a small difference... but the states are incentivized to keep energy cheap for its citizens, first and foremost. They also have to listen to the various lobbies of the various energy producers. You might, if you own your own home and have enough income and the right sort of roof and a home-owners association that allows (because some consider them ugly or anti-historic preservation and ban them), install solar panels on your home. As an individual consumer there are many ways to control your personal carbon footprint (drive less/use less gas, eat less meat especially beef), but consumers don't have a choice for which energy they consume. If you are arguing that consumers use less energy: the average household is more efficient than it has ever been... and any individual household is still a drop in the overall energy bucket compared commercial and industrial usage. (The energy expenditure of the average office building far exceeds the average home. Imagine if we could all work from home...)
- shoo 10y ago
  consumers still benefit from the status quo (in the short term, at least) -- this is separate from the question of if they have the option or ability to change the status quo.
  - WorldMaker 10y ago
    The status quo is to advertise to consumers in PSAs that they have some sort of power to greatly control their own impact on the environment, despite statistically no actual power on that front. While my liberal guilt has me constantly evaluating my own carbon footprint and side-eyeing my neighbors and their SUVs, I also know that as much as I want to be a part of the solution as a consumer, at the end of the day it is corporations, industries, and maybe even the entire system of capitalism that needs to be help culpable for climate change. Blaming consumers for climate change, statistically, is about like blaming the shape of a hill on the ants and the distribution of their ant hills. It's a bit backwards, and it very much avoids any interest in dealing with real solutions.

by shoo 10y ago

i agree. but you're also letting the other side of the deal - consumers of energy produced by polluting energy sources - off the hook. the consumers benefit from this state of affairs too.

ivraatiems 10y ago

What are consumers supposed to do? In many places there is no choice; you get the power the single utility company around provides you. It comes from wherever it comes from. Generating your own is not economically feasible for most.

shoo 10y ago
if consumers live in a democratic country they need to demand policy change to regulate this. some people frame climate change as an "emergency". politically, it is only an emergency if enough people think it is an emergency and are prepared to vote along these lines. i'd agree it is an emergency. but i don't think a majority of people do - so politically, it isn't an emergency.
- ivraatiems 10y ago
  That's fair, and a good point.
- dota_fanatic 10y ago
  It's politically not an emergency because companies with vested interests in maintaining the status quo have invested heavily in disinformation campaigns, basically dominating less-educated citizens through information manipulation via "trusted" news sources, defeating the ideals of the democratic process. Saying people benefit from the status quo of energy is like saying mammals benefit from the status quo of needing oxygen. You don't blame individual mammals for needing oxygen and having no other choice. Especially when other extremely wealthy, organized, and networked mammals are actively working to make sure that that's always the way it's going to be, that status quo being their bread and butter for dominance. You seem to be pointing out what you perceive to be a solution, the political process. Others are saying that that's not a path because it's too much to expect dumb humans (humans in groups of disparate communities, professions, race, religion, etc etc) to be that smart and organized, especially with the adversarial human forces involved. In other words, what point are you trying to make by pointing out that the consumers are benefiting from the arrangement. It's very clear that they are not benefiting, they are only barely getting by, while these companies are drowning in wealth.
VLM 10y ago
Here's the solution for two states. I have no information on the other 48 states but presumably some mixture of legislation and taxes and letter writing will take care of it. Generally speaking the heartland is culturally, socially, and technologically ahead of the flyover coasts (which is why they scream so loud about anecdotes to the contrary, LOL) but someday things like this will come to even the backwards coastie states... https://www.we-energies.com/residential/acctoptions/eft.htm https://www.we-energies.com/residential/acctoptions/eft.htm The marketing "Other" is not unicorn droppings or whatever, its nuclear. I think nuclear is cool but their marketing firm thinks otherwise so its called "other". Because the only thing better than one standard, is two standards, in addition to signing up for renewables at your power company, there is a new option which I haven't tried where you sign up at arcadiapower and I think they pay your bill for you and you pay them a bit more and they sell 100% wind power to your local power co along with paying your bill. I would imagine this is greased with some tax credits but this is pure speculation. The extra cost or surcharge of 100% wind provided power in Wisconsin at this time is an extra 1.5 cents per KWh (a bit more than 10% extra). My parents did energy for tomorrow since honestly I donno when, probably the 90s. I have no personal experience with the Arcadia power alternative. I know E4T does commercial power accounts because every vaguely progressive signally retailer or office has their poster up proudly celebrating 100% powered by renewables, its not unusual. I do have a lot of money invested in energy stocks, I'm honest about that. I believe everything about to be factually correct and unimpacted by my investments, however.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
thescriptkiddie 10y ago
Some utilities have started to offer programs where you can pay extra to purchase 100% renewable energy instead of whatever mix you would otherwise be getting. In areas where that isn't offered, you can still buy carbon offset credits.

WorldMaker 10y ago

That assumes that consumers have an active purchasing power in how their energy is produced. How as a consumer do you switch the source of your energy? You could maybe move to a cleaner energy state, but even then the grid is highly intertwined and the differences may not be worth the expense and carbon output of the move itself. You could also protest/campaign/write-letters to your states public utilities boards and maybe make a small difference... but the states are incentivized to keep energy cheap for its citizens, first and foremost. They also have to listen to the various lobbies of the various energy producers. You might, if you own your own home and have enough income and the right sort of roof and a home-owners association that allows (because some consider them ugly or anti-historic preservation and ban them), install solar panels on your home. As an individual consumer there are many ways to control your personal carbon footprint (drive less/use less gas, eat less meat especially beef), but consumers don't have a choice for which energy they consume. If you are arguing that consumers use less energy: the average household is more efficient than it has ever been... and any individual household is still a drop in the overall energy bucket compared commercial and industrial usage. (The energy expenditure of the average office building far exceeds the average home. Imagine if we could all work from home...)

shoo 10y ago
consumers still benefit from the status quo (in the short term, at least) -- this is separate from the question of if they have the option or ability to change the status quo.
- WorldMaker 10y ago
  The status quo is to advertise to consumers in PSAs that they have some sort of power to greatly control their own impact on the environment, despite statistically no actual power on that front. While my liberal guilt has me constantly evaluating my own carbon footprint and side-eyeing my neighbors and their SUVs, I also know that as much as I want to be a part of the solution as a consumer, at the end of the day it is corporations, industries, and maybe even the entire system of capitalism that needs to be help culpable for climate change. Blaming consumers for climate change, statistically, is about like blaming the shape of a hill on the ants and the distribution of their ant hills. It's a bit backwards, and it very much avoids any interest in dealing with real solutions.