ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Enviroblog is a project of EWG Action Fund.
FEED
An EWG podcast for environmental health news on the go.
TIPS
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblg.
BLOGROLL
STAY CONNECTED
Get our monthly eNewsletter, action alerts, & environmental tips. [Privacy policy, About EWG]
Eco-nomics, the new kind of economics
Please don't disrupt my endocrines!
FEATURED
Please don't disrupt my endocrines!
Consumers to FDA: Be there or be square
Lead: Celebrate its ban, but don't cross it off your list
7 ways to reduce your exposure to PBDEs
Ask EWG
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
SEARCH
« Nothing to hide? | Main | Coke settles benzene lawsuit »
Subsidies for dirty energy
According to the Washington Post, a New Deal program intended to spur investment in rural electricity production in the 1930s continues to shell out billions in low-interest loans for building coal-fired power plants. Though some have tried to eliminate the antiquated subsidy under the argument that most rural areas in the States now have easy access to electricity, the program has proven quite resilient. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association insists that cheap loans will help to keep electric rates affordable in rural regions, warning that any congressional action that jacks up energy prices could result in political suicide.
At the same time, concern over global warming has pressured lawmakers to search for solutions. Investment in coal power will only increase US greenhouse gas emissions, and could offset the positive effects of new vehicle efficiency measures.
Yes, subsidizing dirty energy will reduce electric bills—but at what cost? Our health suffers from mercury, particulate matter, and other pollutants spewed out of smokestacks, leading to higher medical bills and a lower quality of life. Our planet suffers from carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to the economic and social consequences of climate change. Acid rain produced by sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions speed the deterioration of buildings and paint, pollute soil and water sources, decrease visibility, and damage human health. Finally, subsidizing coal costs taxpayer dollars; it’s a program that I definitely don’t want my tax money going to support.
If we really want to build an efficient energy infrastructure, we need to start looking at the true cost of our actions rather than the number of cents per kilowatt. The latter figure dismisses the hugely expensive consequences of cheap and dirty energy production.
Comments
I have no love for coal-fired power plants or the way the government subsidizes and promotes their continuation. But more of the blame for air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions needs to be placed on the American public. We find more ways to consume energy than any other population on earth. Our government points its finger at China and India for slowing progress on climate change legislation. But the fact is that per capita Americans are responsible for five times the carbon dioxide emissions of Chinese and ten times more than those in India. While on one hand, we are demanding that government and utility companies reduce carbon emissions, on the other we stubbornly resist altering our life styles so that the demand for energy is less. Environmental protection is not just "out there" in the hands of government and big business. It's also very much an issue of personal responsibility. As Ghandi said, "When the people lead, government will follow."
Posted by: Bill Schillaci | May 22, 2007 8:09 AM
It is interesting to compare the proposed subsidies for coal to liquids as compared to funding for other energy research. Go to
http://blog.environmentalchemistry.com/2007/06/subsidies-for-coal-to-liquids-compared.html
just published this morning. It will blow your mind! We would be spending the majority of our energy research funding on a energy source that would increase CO2 in the atmosphere and push us two steps backwards in our attempts control climate change. More frightening is the fact that only a token % of federal funds are spent for green energy research.
Posted by: Roberta Barbalace | June 4, 2007 9:01 AM