On Jun 24, 8:24Â*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
Â*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
On Jun 23, 7:12Â*pm, MiNe 109 Â* wrote:
In article
,
Â*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
Oh, so you're really REALLY ****ed because the bill doesn't go *far*
enough!
My bad. I thought you were really REALLY ****ed about something else.
LoL.
Is Scotty arguing both sides again?
Either that or he's arguing that we aren't spending enough fast enough.
You'd think he'd be happy about the lower electric bills.
http://www.grist.org/article/epa-wax...electricity-bi
lls/
Today, the Environmental Protection Agency obliterated these phony
numbers with the release of its economic analysis of H.R. 2454. Â*The EPA
estimated the bill would actually lower household electricity bills:
Â* Â* As a result of energy efficiency measures, Â*consumer spending on Â*
Â* utility bills would be roughly 7% lower in 2020 as a result of the
Â* legislation.
That¹s right €¹ lower bills. In 2007, this would have saved the average
residential user $84, or 23 cents per day. EPA¹s analysis also found:
Â* Â* The overall impact on the average household, Â*including the benefit
Â* of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would
Â* be 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year).
We don¹t have to just wish we were there €¹ we can have a clean energy
economy for the cost of a postcard stamp a day. And the EPA¹s analysis
does not ³take into account the benefits of reducing global warming.²
--
.
What are the costs to implement this?
How much will that raise the cost of consumer's bills?
What about other societal costs?
Will it have governmental costs that will increase taxes?
Will it be like the supposed energy saving lightbulbs, which
take more extra energy to produce than what they save?
You want to be an environmentalist, fine with
me, but get SMART about and don't
fall for glosssy superficial hype.