I think that is a good thing, particularly if the cost estimates are reasonable.
O'Malley estimates green building will increase the up-front costs of building schools by 2 percent to 3 percent, but that it will reduce energy costs over the long run.I hope so, because capital costs tend to absorb the largest, non-compensation, chunk of the budget and the government should be concerned about saving costs, since in the end, I and the rest of the taxpayers are footing the bill.
I do have one small beef though with this quote:
"It is not just about wind, not just about water, not just about solar or nuclear (power)," O'Malley said. "It is about, really, a transformation from a primarily fossil fuel sort of economy to a different sort of economy that is fueled by a number of different types of renewable energy, and most importantly, technology that can bring way down the amount of energy each of us uses as a human being."Yes, multiple power sources, nuclear (found in southern Maryland), solar, wind and other sources of energy to supplement, and to the extent possible supplant, fossil fuel energy is an important step. However, no matter what source of energy is used, the only method to "bring way down" the amount of energy a person uses to allow market forces to control the costs. Most utility rates are capped artificially low, or have been for a long time, such that people have no concept of how much the energy they use costs. O'Malley is learning that lesson as utility companies in the Baltimore area implementing a 76% rate increase due to years with artificially low rates--done for political reasons.
Technology is a wonderful tool for making life easier, but like all green technology, it must no raise costs so much that the average person cannot afford to change their fossil fuel burning ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment