Would you pay a higher energy bill to address global warming as most people would?

Question

Most people say they are ready to make personal sacrifices – including paying more for their energy – to help address climate change, according to a new BBC World Service poll of 22,000 people in 21 countries.

In all countries majorities agree that in order to address the problem of climate change it will be necessary for individuals in their country “to make changes in their life style and behavior in order to reduce the amount of climate changing gases they produce.” On average 83 percent say it will be necessary with 46 percent saying it will be definitely necessary.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/427.php?lb=hmpg2&pnt=427&nid=&id=

How about you? Will you pay higher energy costs and reduce your energy consumption to address global warming?

Answer 1

I do. I pay for "wind energy". Obviously, it's a grid and there's no way to say exactly where the power comes from. But the Public Utilities Commission monitors the money to be sure it goes toward acquiring and running wind energy.

Many utilities have something similar.

Of course I've recently lowered my bill more than the small extra fee by conserving energy (compact fluorescent lights, better insulation, programmable thermostat, sealing cracks, etc.), also.

Answer 2

If necessary, I would. But I've worked out a much better way--using energy more efficiently, so I maintain my standard of living--and REDUCE my enrgy costs.

But that doesn't really answer the question. Yes--I am willing to pay more for what I do consume--IF the added cost is for things that will actually help.

For example: allowing utilities to increase rates to fund new investment in alternative enrgy is a plus--I have no problem with doing that. Especially since, in the long run, those new technologies, once on line, will end up reducing energy production costs.

BUT--what about ideas for taxing gas to cut consumption and/or fund environmental programs? In geral, no. For several reasons that can be summerized by saying such policies are likely to be counter-productive. In situations where there is good reson to think otherwise, this could be a viable option--but I doubt it.

The point-pay more to solve the problems? Yes--if the money is targeted effectively, based on sound research and policy formulation.

Answer 3

Yes, over the last few years myself and my family have made life changes to try and at least do our little bit towards a more cleaner environment. It's not too hard, but it requires belief first. I was amazed at how quickly my 10 year old started doing all the right things, as soon as he understood the consequences.

I don't know that we will really be paying much more though. We're saving quite a bit by having changed our light bulbs to energy efficient ones. It is often the little things we change that make a big change in the long run.

Answer 4

The answer to your question is yes... (But why??)

Several years ago I found myself with extra time and money on my hands. I was up late one night looking for a vacation rental in Spain. I noticed that on most of the vacation homes, there were strange looking ridge caps on the roofs. As it turned out, they were solar panels. I started doing my "hillbilly research" on solar panels and solar cells. Where I live, competitively priced solar panels are not cost effective on a traditionally constructed home.
When we took the next family outing, I came up with another idea... Mammoth Cave... It is 53 degrees year round in these caves... I was thinking that if I could build a home that stayed at a constant "lower" temperature year round, I could use free solar energy to increase the temp to a comfortable setting.
I found a construction method where my home is basically an Igloo cooler. The walls and roof system are made up of 10 inches of a fire proof insulating foam sandwiched between plywood. (Yet my home looks no different than any other home) Using a radiant heat system in the floors and walls, my home stays at 72 - 75 degrees all year. (Outside temp range where I live is from the low teens in the winter to the high 90's in the summer) Applying solar panels to this home was more than cost effective. I have the traditional electric service as everyone else does, but my meter (most of the time) never turns. The panels that I installed provide more energy than I use. Drying cloths and cooking food is the only time I am pulling electric from the local electric grid...

The "extra" cost of constructing this home paid for itself in just under three years. Now, the money saved on heating, and money I am paid from the electric company for excess power backflow to the grid pays 1/4 of my mortgage.

Now if they would design a Porsche that runs on water, we would be set!

Answer 5

Not willingly. I have added a 60,000 BTU heater grate with blower to my fireplace and an additional return air duct in the same room to circulate warm air through out my house. I have access to hundreds of acres of forest. I will burn wood instead of paying for natural gas. My house also has trees on all sides that keep it in the shade most of the time. The attic is well ventilated and well insulated. I can always turn the thermostat up in the summer and jump in the pool.

Answer 6

I think I would. I guess another question that goes with it is how much higher? We have a lot of collective thinking to do. Do farmers for instance get fuel and electric a a cheaper price since they provide food. If farmers do, how about medical doctors? What about housing - should construction workers get a break. Guess you get the drift. But you are right - a little bit by all may go a long way.

Answer 7

I would like you to go to a poor neighbourhood were people have difficultly making ends meet and ask that question. It is all well and good for people who make a comfortable living to say yes. What impact will such measures have on the poor?

I would also like to know what series of questions preceded your question. All educated people know you can you can manipulate public opinion polls to say anything you want. It is the old saying: "statistics lie". If I wanted people to say yes, all I have to do is ask the following preceding questions. Are you concerned about global warming? Are you concerned about your children's future? If you answered yes to both, and then ask the question "are you willing to pay more money for energy to fight global warming?", what do you think most of the people will say?

But you also know that most people are not willing to pay more money for energy. That is why you asked this question. You are saying, that if everybody else is willing to pay more money, you should too.

Answer 8

I strongly doubt that most people are willing to make sacrifices. If that were the case, there would be no need for government mandated changes. If the government must force people to make the change, it's not voluntary, it is coerced. This of course is a violation of every principle of personal freedom.

Answer 9

If its not too drastic, of course I will.To adapt the present coal-firing generators/incinerators to plasma enhanced melters would cost a lot in the beginning but more beneficial to the environment in the end.

Answer 10

Agree with happynurse. I would pay a small amount of money to finally put an end to this nonsense. If people are telling you that they would pay anything for this cause, I would bet that they would change their mind in no time as there would most certainly be no noticeable environmental change. These people are full of dodo. why don't they just bike or walk to work, sell their cars, live without modern conveniences 2-3 times per week or better yet, all year long. These people are the biggest hippocrates as they would pay a higher energy bill but still live their lives as they did. Al Gore is the biggest hippo crate of them all and yet, everyone listens to him. Private jet, limos.. yada yada yada.. YOU pay more. I'll keep my money and keep driving and using incandescent light bulbs...