Guest Post by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times.
Last week I received a “Home Energy Report” flyer from Commonwealth Edison, my electricity provider in northern Illinois. The leaflet compared my energy usage to neighbors over the last two months and declared, “You used 41% MORE electricity than your efficient neighbors.” Should I be concerned about this?
My wife and I use energy, but don’t waste it. For years I’ve driven my family batty, turning off lights in vacated rooms. During the summer, my wife dries laundry in the sunshine, rather than in the dryer. We also have many of the compact fluorescent bulbs. We take these measures to lower our energy bills, not for other motives.
Isn’t it odd that ComEd, a company in the energy business, is encouraging their customers not to use it? Imagine a mailer from Coca-Cola pointing out that you drank 41% MORE soft drinks than your neighbor. Or a letter sent from Apple telling you that you needed to reduce your iPhone and iPad purchases.
A visit to the ComEd website provides some answers. First, the company is required to use part of customer payments to urge Illinois customers to reduce electricity consumption by the Illinois Public Act 95-0481. But second, the website is filled with ideological nonsense. In the Saving Energy section of the website, we find a yellow “Power Bandit” and the statement, “Saving Energy was never so much fun! Beat the Power Bandit and learn lots of ways to save energy, save money and help save the planet!” Does ComEd really believe that we can save the planet by changing light bulbs?
For decades, environmental groups have waged war on energy. They warn that increased energy usage will pollute the Earth, destroy the climate, and rapidly exhaust natural resources. They demand substitution of dilute, intermittent, and expensive wind, solar, and biofuel energy for traditional hydrocarbon or nuclear power, which is an excellent way to reduce energy usage. They tell us that nations which use the most energy do the most environmental damage.
National and state governments have swallowed the “energy usage is bad” ideology hook, line, and sinker. Twenty-nine states have enacted Renewable Portfolio Standards laws, requiring utilities to use an increasing percentage of renewable energy or be fined. Hundreds of federal and state policies subsidize and mandate renewable or reduced energy usage, including light bulb bans, vehicle mileage mandates, wind and solar subsidies, ethanol fuel mandates, and energy efficiency programs. These policies collect additional taxes from citizens and boost the cost of electricity.
But, actual trends and empirical data show that our planet is not in imminent danger. Air and water pollution in the United States is at a fifty-year low. According to Environmental Protection Agency data, airborne levels of six major pollutants declined 57 percent from 1980 to 2009 even though energy usage was up 21 percent and vehicle miles traveled were up 93 percent. International data shows that pollution is lowest in high-income nations that use high levels of energy, such as Canada and Sweden, but highest in developing nations, such as India and Indonesia. The best way reduce pollution in developing nations is to increase per capita incomes, not to restrict energy usage.
Similarly, there is no empirical evidence to show that mankind is destroying Earth’s climate. Mankind’s comparatively tiny emissions of carbon dioxide, a trace gas in our atmosphere, cause only an insignificant part of the greenhouse effect. Global surface temperatures have been flat for more than ten years despite rising atmospheric CO2. Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies report warmer temperatures 1,000 years ago than temperatures of today. A review of history shows that today’s storms, droughts, and floods are neither more frequent nor more severe than past events.
Nor are we rapidly exhausting Earth’s energy resources. We’re at the dawn of a hydrocarbon revolution, triggered by the new techniques of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Mankind now has access to centuries of petroleum and natural gas from shale fields, which can be accessed with cost-effective and environmentally-safe methods.
Yet, the “energy is bad” ideology continues. Grade school students are taught that renewable energy is good and that hydrocarbon energy is bad. The EPA is waging a war on the U.S. coal industry. Demonstrators urge President Obama to stop the Keystone pipeline. And utilities tell us how we can “save the planet.”
By the way, reports state that the 20-room Tennessee house of former Vice President Al Gore devours more than 20 times the national average electricity usage. I wonder what rating Mr. Gore would get in a ComEd “Home Energy Report?”
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow, you yanks live in an idiocracy, big brother has got you guys by the short and curlies and you have not noticed it yet. How does the power company know that you use more power? and if you pay for it what the hell are they snooping about at? You have lost freedom, its gone. Smart meters, more like dumb ass meters to me. Try and not have one and they will cut off your power, ha, how free do you feel now? Leaders of the free world? no longer I fear, sad times.
Please excuse my bluntness, but this is the kind of thing that makes me want to punch a leftist in the face (disclaimer: “want to” does not mean I intend to).
LEAVE THE CHILDREN OUT OF IT.
I find it morally repugnant that the left seem to have no problem indoctrinating innocent and naive children into their causes. I was recently checking out the high school curriculum here and was only mildly surprised that all of their political education is telling them they are “liberals”. Really subtle way to buy future votes, right?
So we already have a generation that seems to think playing video games is an occupation. Now we’re raising them to believe every wacko leftist mantra, too. Next thing you know, kids will actually take people like al-Gore and 0bama seriously, as if they had anything useful to contribute to society… oh wait…
A clever way to redistribute income upward, few have recognised the revolutionary potential of environmentalism and have fallen for thisi ‘water melon’ non-sense, Environmentalism is fundamentally opposed to ‘socialism’ in its old fashioned European sense of a system of law and governmnet that helps in the redistribution of income (incl.assets) to make for a more equal society (from the economic perspective) . Environmentalism protects what the wealthy like most:, places with no or few people, innovations that earn money for investors and CEOs, and provides top quality in food, clothing etc.(with high profit margins)…the rest of us can get lost or much better, be persuaded to becoem more ‘efficient’ to support hsi system. And many have fallen for it!
Sonja Christiansen
It’s all BS until the government starts turning off the streetlights and handing out IR goggles for night-time use. Why exactly do we have streetlights everywhere again? Talk about a waste of power!
You blaspheme!!
I have replaced all light bulbs with Compact flourescent, and my appliances are fairly new with best achievable energy ratings. Yet still my consumption marches ever upwards. What’s going on?
Looking for answers, I notice that we have 2 desktop pc’s and 2 laptops. We have electric toothbrushes and mobile phones which are constantly being recharged. We have acquired 2 tropical fish tanks (my wife’s idea!) in the last year and a half. When we upgraded to fibre broadband, we were given a separate modem and router, both of which are plugged into the mains.
It seems technology is taking over, and it’s consuming my electricity. And there’s little I can do about it except go back 10 years.
Rud Istvan says:
February 27, 2013 at 5:24 pm
“…you have shown woeful ignorance of petroleum geophysics and engineering. Unfortunately, in that you are not alone.”
————————————————————————-
Greetings from the middle of Texas and the center of the tight shale universe!
Alas kind Rud I do believe it is you that is ignorant of the truth and a swallower of the kool-aid from the anti-fracking propagandists.
As a Petroleum Engineer for the last 35 years and one who worked on the first 18 or so Barnett Shale wells (the first development of a tight shale) in Texas in the ’80’s I can assure you that the horizontal drilling and massive frac jobs are not by any way, shape, or form going away without the total collapse of the price of oil (gas is already way to low) and/or the continued meddling of governments.
You sir should stick to what you know and leave the engineering and geology to those of us who do know what we are doing. Don’t believe the poppy cock spit out by the Agenda 21 crowd any more than you should believe in hockey sticks and tree rings.
Consider this new report:
http://www.bottomlinepublications.com/content/article/health-a-healing/do-energy-saving-lightbulbs-give-you-skin-cancer?utm_campaign=_BRL1rvB8xC0dt0&DHN
Interesting that saving energy can now be tied to increased risks of skin cancer.
I laugh when I get the energy usage analysis for my house from my supplier in Illinois because one glaring error is that it doesn’t address the square footage of the houses for comparison. It’s a complete waste of time.
The accuaracy of the comparison to neighbors letter is extremely puzzling. I’m said to be 60% over my efficient neighbors and 40% over the average. Yet we are known as the house where nobobdy is home just because we keep lights turned off in unused rooms, have reasonably efficient appliances, use auto-off outdoor lights, and the house is one of the newer houses with even newer air conditioning in this neighborhood. Either there are a lot of small apartments 3 blocks away that are used for comparison even though ComEd’s letter implies they are not or ComEd is “managing” the results some other way.
I know a guy that works for ComEd in that department. He’s personally observed that there isn’t enough renewable energy to meet demand and considers the solution to that problem to be to limit usage to what renewables (wind here in the Midwest) produce and then do without. For public relations v. environmentalists, maybe it pays to have a few fanatics on your team. But the activism is an aberration for a utility. How about some publicity for that?
Most of the concepts associated with “green” energy such as efficiency, natural lighting designs and alternative sources existed long before the concept of green. The green movement hijacks them to give them a false sense of importance and urgency and restrict alternatives not endorsed in the ideology. There is no one in my urban area of the Midwest that would consider putting up a giant white cross on their business property to advertise their religion, but I do know of a young veterinarian that dreams of putting up a turbine at her new clinic to profess her obssession. Fine, as long as it’s her money and I get to go somewhere besides the holy roller for my GM grain-free sermons.
Let me sum it up this way. When things are wrong, the people behind it talk in a creepy way. They can’t help it. It’s almost a confessional urge. Steve’s pamphlet was creepy talk: intrusive, impertinent and largely meaningless. Something is very wrong.
“He’s personally observed that there isn’t enough renewable energy to meet demand and considers the solution to that problem to be to limit usage to what renewables (wind here in the Midwest) produce and then do without.”
The actual solution, of course, will be for everyone who can to buy a generator, like other third world nations with unreliable power. Which will mean more fuel burned and a lot more pollution.
Well put neighbor.
The madness may not have spread to Elk Grove Village yet, or maybe I’m one of the lesser users putting the shame on others 🙂
We should insist that environmentalists practice what they preach. Those who preach about energy waste, should be the first ones to be knocked totally off the grid.
Greg Holmes says:
Wow, you yanks live in an idiocracy, big brother has got you guys by the short and curlies and you have not noticed it yet.
==============
I agree Greg. Big Brother is getting way out of hand in the US.
There are some brave Americans refusing to allow power companies to install the “smart” meters, with some even being arrested for obstruction, while others are merely being charged higher rates to have meters read by power company workers.
I’m all for new technological efficiencies, providing the technology isn’t abused by the government.
The best answer is to let individuals decide whether they want the lower electrical rates/less freedom with “smart” meters, or higher electrical rates/more freedom.
Those types of decisions will be increasing exponentially as we approach the next technological singularity.
These days I’m often reminded of that old Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times…”
Things are about to get very interesting indeed.
I suspect much of ComEd’s motivation results from capacity issues. It’s expensive and difficult to build more generating capacity. Summer loads seem to set records every year and rolling brown-outs are a problem. It’s cheaper to bang the efficiency drum, especially when customers are complaining about rising bills and are likely to cooperate.
Rud Istvan says:
February 27, 2013 at 5:24 pm
Your assertion about hundred of years of new petroleum bounty is worse geophysics than any of the nonsense in CAGW. …..you have shown woeful ignorance of petroleum geophysics
=========================================================================
Actually Rud, geophysics has little to do with it. I’m a petroleum geophysicist who fortunately retired before the engineers figured out how to make us obsolete.
Every week friends tell me about a new shale or tight formation being sucessfully produced. And we are just starting to figure it out.
Don’t be fooled by low recovery rates. Those will move higher, and the oil and gas in place in these things is huge. For every conventional field found so far on earth there is a source rock with 100 times the hydrocarbon that made its way into that field.
Mike says:
February 27, 2013 at 4:50 pm
“Isn’t it odd that ComEd, a company in the energy business, is encouraging their customers not to use it? ”
It should be no surprise. Companies like ComEd are regulated, i.e. they are guaranteed a return on their money. Thus, if quantity sold goes down, guess what happens? Rates go up to ensure ComEd’s profit margins. They have the same number of employees to pay at the same rates and the same bondholders to satisfy as before. The state, which mandated the “conservation” efforts will, of course, approve the needed rate increases and will also, possibly, mandate additional fees to be used to help those thrown into fuel poverty by all the above. It’s all in a “good” cause too.
As technology progresses there will come a time sooner than most think when most anyone who wants to will be able to go off grid and supply all their own energy. What will happen to all that infrastructure? Just a SWAG but maybe they know it is coming and don’t want to spend any more on infrastructure? Maybe just trying to milk the most money they can out of existing is more likely.
I, and my family, have been as conserving as we can in a normal house (2800 sq ft) for 17+ years. I’ve kept track of my usage. 11 meters cubed water, 350 KwH electric, 8 gigajules gas is the average. Not bad. I’ve saved a bunch of money (tax free money) as that is the green that will get most peoples attention.
The majority of all the costs on my bills are connection fees, upgrade fees, etc. The actual consumption is about half at most. I’d love to go off grid and save more money. Not quite there yet but close. I’ve got my ROI spreadsheet ready to go for any ideas that come up.
Joanie says:
February 27, 2013 at 4:36 pm
“When we had the ‘electricity crisis’ here, some years back, my family cut our electricity uses drastically. We naturally use less energy anyway, living in a temperate climate, so we were low to begin with. The next year, they encouraged people to conserve by giving them a rebate on the percentage they cut their usage… but of course, it was compared to the year before, where we had cut it to bare bones! So no rebate for us. There just wasn’t any more to cut. No other business is mandated to encourage that their customers use less of their product, it’s insane.”
This should also be no surprise. California has used this approach to droughts for much of a century. The first drought years are accompanied by eloquent appeals to voluntarily conserve as much water as possible. This is followed by a rationing limit based on prior year’s use (with an exemption to fill swimming pools of course). Back when I lived in CA, I had a neighbor who took the initial appeals seriously. When the rationing hit, he couldn’t even take a shower anymore. All the drought resistant landscaping (minimal watering requirements, but still needing a little water) he put in at his own expense the prior year had to be allowed to die. Yet the Hollywood stars with massive amounts of water intensive landscaping and swimming pools were hardly affected.
Our local electric company started a similar campaign to get consumers and businesses to save electricity and then applied for a rate increase because of lost revenues!
Admittedly, much of the lost revenues came from buying the mandated green energy at above-market prices. I don’t know if they lost money giving away CFL bulbs or if they were paid to do that. Either way, the government needs to quit interfering with the market.
See also:
California Girds for Electricity Woes
Increased Reliance on Wind, Solar Power Means Power Production Fluctuates
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323699704578328581251122150.html
Would it be too much trouble to ask for a reputable cite please? You see, power distribution and transmission authorities employ engineers who do reliability and ‘traffic’ studies which seek to identify choke points and weak links for the next ‘capital projects’ approval cycle …
(My alternate reply would otherwise be “Poppycock!” but I am really interested in the discussion vs simply ‘shutting it down’. Truly.)
.
Actually, there *is* product out there where the *streetlight* wears the IR goggles <grin> … the lights, LED-based (for instant-on capability) remain off until ‘movement’ from a warm-something-or-other is noted.
Of course, it will take some getting used-to I expect. First markets are parking lots, where it’s totally useless and inefficient to ‘light’ a lot that remains vacant from say 8 PM until the dawn hours around 6 AM when the first early-risers begin to arrive!
.
The EPA already bans the most efficient diesel “prime-mover” for a small continuous-duty home or cottage-use genny, the “Lister” … although it may be available in the US as a kit of parts …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_A_Lister_and_Company
.