US energy bills (was Re: Nader)

[Dhlazare at aol.com]

But there is no monopoly -- more energy is available from more sources at ever
lower prices.  Deregulation is a reflection of the fact that the old system of
state-regulated utilities -- legal monopolies, really -- is breaking down.
Besides, it should be public policy to push energy prices much higher by
laying on stiff "green" taxes.  Americans drive too much and live in over-
large, over-heated houses because the environmental and social costs of all
this energy consumption are socialized rather than privatized.

Besides, if green taxes were applied, demand would drop and the prices that
suppliers would be able to charge would drop as well.  This would do a lot
more to hurt large energy purveyors, from the utilities to OPEC, far more than
the regulatory system that Nader supports.

Dan Lazare

<< Doug Henwood wrote:

 

 > U.S. energy bills aren't "high" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

 Well, they are higher than they should be, for all the normal

 reasons (plus the bungled attempt to build safe, efficient, cheap

 nuclear plants :-), so they seem to be a decent anti-monopoly

 target (moreso, I think, than Microsoft or Intel); but in California,

 we're seeing what deregulation of the energy industry really means:

 you get a shell game about who is ripping you off, instead of a

 single target like PG&E that the SF Guardian can keep tabs on.

 

 /jordan

  >>