lead by example
October 26th, 2007
Politics, Vermont, global warming
Here we go again. The Symington Shumlin pair are bound and determined that Vermont will lead the world in carbon emissions reduction by our tiny example. So much so that they have commissioned $27,000 to help us figure out how to reduce our heating bills. And in so doing, we can be fairly confident that what ever reduction in our heating bills may be realized will be more than offset by increased state spending – spending of the resident’s money. That is not efficiency.
The energy markets will encourage conservation. Seriously, how do we elect people to represent our interests who overlook the obvious? There are few of us who look for deals on energy so we can purchase more of the stuff just for fun. Having gas and heating oil double over the past three years means that we have less to spend on a nice meal at the local restaurant and will have to fore go a few trips to the slopes this season – or maybe a few less videos. Sooner or later the extra cost of energy will catch up to us. If we could avoid it by spending a few more bucks on insulation and weather stripping… we will. Gaye need not worry.
What Gaye and Peter should be worrying about on our behalf is how increased energy costs will affect the state budget. I suspect that the easy solution for them is to let the tax man take care of it. But school buses take diesel, schools take fuel oil, and that edifice in Montpelier probably could use an energy efficiency consultant or two for itself. All of which means this: we get to pay the state to help us conserve our energy while also paying for the increased cost of energy the state needs to run our lives. And all so that for every little bit of carbon we save here, Russia, China, and India will be more than happy to offset the saving many times over. And if it’s carbon making us warmer – then warmer we shall get.
Without regard to carbon emissions, look to the operation of our state government to conserve energy and reduce those increased costs that loom in the future. For example, rather than waste time, money, and energy trying to figure out how to save energy, learn how to use the “information highway” to conduct legislative business. Less legislation means less energy and less cost to the state. And using the internet to do legislative homework saves energy; fewer days in Montpelier. The drawback of course is that the self aggrandizing “face to face” that is so important to our politicians is lost – no swaggering and fewer photo ops. Keep those cars and SUVs in Chittenden and Bennington and Brattleboro rather than emitting back and forth to Montpelier. Can we improve the energy efficiency of our schools? Our highway department? Of course such saving would cost jobs. So how about reducing the state’s tax burden making it attractive to new business development? But new business needs energy and that means more carbon emissions.
Government mandated energy efficiency is not affordable.
If Vermont and our legislators can reduce our state government’s carbon footprint – and energy consumption - by 10%, I think we would all be impressed. (If it takes another $27,000 in consulting fees to reduce government spending by … say even four times that, I can’t imagine anyone would complain.) And then – only then – use THAT 10% to show the rest of us how it’s done.
Show us your savings - first.
Comments