RE: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by tully

17 December 2000 23:32 UTC

At 02:08 PM 12/17/00 -0800, David A wrote:
>By this argument, then, shouldn't your power bill come with a note
>saying, "On your behalf, based on your consumption of X kilowatt-hours
>this month, Midwest Power produced Y pounds of greenhouse gases, Z
>pounds of atmospheric particulates, (etc). These by-products have been
>shown to cause respiratory problems in people living to your east that
>will statistically cause 0.12 additional pulmonary deaths/year, and
>contribute to an overall long-term warming of the earth, will accelerate
>the rise in sea levels, (etc)."

Yes.  This would begin the long process of accounting for the "hidden" 
costs, that we capitalists so enjoy sweeping under the rug.  The "right" to 
burn gasoline in our cars needs to be viewed from a new perspective, one 
that accounts for the intangible costs to our environment, our health, the 
world situation, etc. instead of just the tangibles of bringing the fuel to 
the gas stations for our use.  These hidden costs need to be tallied and I 
see real value in taxing these values to death, a real "pollution" tax, if 
you will.  Since our military is so vital for keeping access to these 
resources clear, perhaps something like half the military's funding could 
come from such taxes.  This would help motivate scaling both the military 
and the dirty industries back and creating new directions instead.

>Should you be "given" the option of
>buying your power from a solar-energy power producer instead? Nuclear,
>if you so choose?

This would indeed be good to see.  Renting out power lines like the phone 
companies were forced to do with their networks.  If the hidden costs were 
taxed, the alternative energy sources could indeed begin to compete.