And You Think Your Power is High:
Good Morning Middle
I’m looking for opinions today. The oil prices are creating greater hardships for remote areas than for those in the metropolitan cities. I’ll focus on one of those areas in particular and that is rural
In the middle-Yukon
“They’re the low-income villagers who live in federal HUD houses, with heat tapes on the pipes and electric stoves,” he said. “And that was the price of electricity when they were burning last winter’s diesel. Now that the season’s first fuel barge has unloaded, the price of diesel just jumped $3 to $7.50 a gallon,” Sweetsir said. “They’re just up against the wall,” he said. “People are talking about moving to town.”
Power in some regions where the electricity is produced by large diesel generators and the fuel is either barged or flown in, the kilowatt hour rate is expected to hit $1.00. To put that in perspective, most areas of the country pay around 12 cent per KwH.
So what is the answer to this problem? Fuel doesn’t seem to be getting any cheaper, nor does transportation. Many are calling for the state of
In fact Meera Kohler, president of Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, has a great idea; subsidize the cost of diesel used to produce power to reflect no more than $1.40 per gallon. And also subsidize the gas at the village pumps to result in a consumer cost of $1.80 per gallon.
“Such a plan would share the windfall of
So what do you think? How would you suggest that
The call for change has certainly been the central focus in this presidential election campaign. And all of those folks that are calling for change don’t have a thing to worry about…change they will get. However, just not exactly the kind of change they were hoping for.
Subscribe to this blog
Meera’s proposal fits very comfortably with Obama’s socialist agendas and is not all that far from McCain’s views either. It also seems to fit (comfortably) the mindset of most Americans today. This is how communism was initiated and implemented in many countries in the past and many of them are not entirely dissatisfied with purely socialist rule. Many of the younger generaton especially do not understand the true meaning of freedom, and therefore will not miss it like many of the older generation. It will be a transitional thing over a fairly short period of time. Maybe it is best to accept it at this point, since it appears no changes toward reimplementing the constitution are within sight; and there is very little if any apparent interest in that document that formed the foundation of what once was the greatest country; the greatest society on earth.
I truly belive that most Americans want a change; the kind of change you see coming, Mike. And just because this is not the kind of change we invision, does not mean it will not come to pass. And once it has come to pass, there will be no turning back.
Gila,
Thanks for the comment, I’m going to refrain from my own input until such time that I see what others suggest. The problems are massive, this is just an example of what is coming to a neighborhood near all of us. As Kathy P. said yesterday, “So many myths dispelled in so short a time.”
What would you personally do about the village power situation if you were elected Dictator For a Day?
If I were dictator for a day, I would not deal with the village fuel problem directly. I would create a plan and a format to itialize that plan after my one day of terror ended.
The plan would be extensive, and would contain dramatic changes in our economic policy; eliminating exponential growth and drawing our economic system more in line with constitutional requirements of promoting a sustainable economy. I would eliminate the fed and return to a form of the old gold standard system. I would stop unreigned population growth in our country, by shutting down our borders to everyone who wanted to become a citizen until our economy had been stabilized. I would gradually begin returning veterans from Iraq, followed by a gradual withdrawal of troops out of the other 160+ countries we now occupy. I would eliminate the gas tax that is in place at this time and encourage growth in the fields of alternative energy. I would encourage citizens to truly study our countries constitution and demand all politicians follow their oath of office, not the path to their bank accounts that is being followed at this time. I would encourage everyone to reject socialized medice in this country at all costs and give them the many reasons to. I would immediately begin re-negotiating trade agreements and canceling the ones that parties refused to negotiate. Future trade agreements would not be made because of the need for ever expanding growth policies or for reasons associated with political greed. I would propose population control and explain the many reasons for this requirement; and extend this plan and associated information to all countries.
As you can see, my day would be a full one, first just listing the needs. Then creating a plan to follow the requirements of accomplishing the needs. These plans would not eliminate the hit we will suffer in our post oil days, but would go a long ways toward alleviating the pain that will be associated with those days.
I believe you can also see that we have been afforded the opportunity to work ouselves out of the mess we are in at this time, in candidate Ron Paul. But he was soundly rejected. Like you have mentioned in the past, Dr. Paul will appear to be near genius as time goes forward and we continue our trip of denial into the pit we have dug for ourselves through corrupt and massively ignorant politicians similar to the two front runners now. This is a one way street. We can stop the insanity displayed in our naton today or go forth to a place we will never return from. -bb
As harsh as it may sound, I would let the invisible hand of the market serve its purpose without any interference. Major problems with markets usually don’t arise until the government tries to put their hand in. What this means is that, if this town of Ruby is non-sustainable on its own, then it just might be time for the residents to pack it in and move somewhere else. Granted, I know nothing about this town or its residents. For all I know, they could be a valuable asset this country. If not, then the State of Alaska or the U.S. government does not need to waste money for people to live somewhere that is otherwise uninhabitable. If they can’t afford to live there on their own because of gas prices then they need to go where they can survive. If they want to stay, then they need to figure out another way to live without the help of fuels. (For example, wood burning stoves). Either way, the people need to be able to take care of themselves in this situation and make their own decisions which they will live by.
As a society, we have grown spoiled by luxuries to the point where luxuries are now considered necessities by some. With gas at more than four dollars a gallon, some people still refuse to change their ways. I can’t stand hearing people justify the use of an SUV by saying, “but we have kids so we need it.” I grew up with 2 sisters, 5 step-sisters and a step-brother and we got by just fine with compact cars. I am truly happy that there is an “oil crisis” right now. It is finally forcing Americans to make changes to their lives that will help to lower our demand for fuel. A friend of mine, who was constantly in debt the whole time I have known him due to wasteful spending, told me last week that when he got his last paycheck, he didn’t need it. It was the first time in his life that he didn’t need to live paycheck to paycheck. The reason for this is that the increasing prices scared him away from wasteful spending and he was able to balance out his budget.
I agree with everything billyb had to say except for the removal of the gas tax. This would only lead to more fuel consumption. If I had it my way, and I have been saying this since gas was 3.00 a gallon, I would put a federal $1.00 a gallon tax on gas. This would help to push Americans the extra step forward towards cutting their consumption even more. This would lower our total demand and might even help to bring crude oil prices back down. An extra 1.00 a gallon tax would probably only see a net gain of .50 after a few months. Without this dollar tax, the prices will rise anyways so it’s better to have the money stay in the U.S. rather than going over to the Middle East. This extra money could be used strictly to build up our nation’s transportation infrastructure which is horrendous. I have already made the necessary changes so that I only need about a tank of gas a month. I moved to where I work and I figured out the bus schedule. It wasn’t easy making the changes, but I did it and now I am better off than when gas was cheaper.
First of all, I want to welcome Richmondarn to our site and our community.
Rich and Billy are some tough Dictators of the Day.
I’m still holding out for some other comments on how they would deal with the situation presented in my article before I comment.
I have to say, that I dunno.. Those that want to not help, lemme say that all of the people in big cities are helped by government.. .
I guess, moderation my be the answer.. I dunno about electric stoves in Ruby.. There is a lot of oil in Alaska, and Ruby shud get their fair share of the pie.. You can’t just put all the people into big cities, and expect government support because it’s more economical… Big cities are not the answer.. They may wind up being the problem.. Maybe some small villages have to get larger, and some cities get smaller.. I think there are hidden costs to big cities.. Social costs and the like..
My answer, is to give Ruby reasonable aid, and they have to compromise.. If it doesn’t work, things have to change.. When that isn’t enough, something will have to change again..
WmA..
Okay, I guess it’s my turn huh? As far as Ruby and the other villages, the cost to provide power has always been very costly and has always been subsidized, which is where they went wrong to begin with.
There is a breaking point to everything and $7.50 for diesel is it. Had the villagers been paying the actual cost all along, the problem wouldn’t exist today.
You will note that low income HUD housing is already provided and $900 power bills are being absorbed. I don’t even want to tell you about the schools.
There is a cost for living in extremely remote areas and for those who chose to live there, that should be their cost to bear. No one is being held prisoner.
The fact that Alaska has a permanent fund from taxing the oil production should not be a factor in considering ever increasing subsidies.
The permanent fund is not permanent and some day will decline with the end of oil production leaving Alaskans with massive debts that must be made up by new taxes. But, so long as the oil holds out and someone else is paying the bill…who really gives a damn?
The bigger picture is that nearly every state in the union is having budget problems. There are thousands of towns like Ruby who can’t maintain their existing infrastructures. They were built on speculation of infinite growth and lost the bet.
How could they possibly subsidize more programs when they can’t pay for what they are currently bound to?
Reality is one tough customer and it’s knocking on the front door all across this country.
Hi Mike,
I’m sorry I got in late for this exchange. What a great diversity of views!
I’ve done a lot of professional work in the area of problem analysis, so my response is informed by this orientation. The first thing I’d want to know before moving to a solution stage is the history of this situation. Who are these villagers? Are they “native” Alaskans who’ve been dispossessed of their land or resources by the acquisition of Alaska as a state? Or, are they some of the “North to Alaska” influx of the 1950’s?
If they are the former, what kind of “deal” did the state make with them? The HUD housing suggests that there may have been a covenant of some sort, involving an exchange of some minimal standard of US living for their “native” ways.
I’d also be interested in the level of their dependency on government support. How many generations have passed in this condition of dependency, and how able are they to either resume a former way of living (if my guess about their being “native” Alaskans is right), or do they have readiness for something else?
Another question is what they think they should do. I’m continually heartened by the ability of humans to solve their own problems. I’m seeing it all around me in my “neck of the woods” as people adapt to higher gas and food prices.
Aside from problem analysis and solution, I do see some irony in the situation (if my hunch about their origins is right). If they were dispossessed due to “our” insatiable thirst for oil, development and infinite growth, maybe, if too many generations haven’t passed, they’ll be better off than we in adapting to the changes we ALL face. I think they may have the last laugh.
Thanks for posing such a great question.
Kathy
I’ve been reading about Galena Alaska and Toshiba’s micro reactor power plant since 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Galena could be a ghost town by 2012.
Kathy,
Your hunch was correct in that these are primarily native people. And your questions are all valid.
They had no electricity or communications in these villages until the 70s. They were in fact hunter-gathers, subsisting primarily off the land until the 50s.
We fixed them up with diesel generators, snow mobiles, communications and native land settlement checks along with the annual Alaska Permanent Fund dividend annual checks. Temporarily.
But, as is the case with most indigenous people, they had no real interest in conforming to the white mans ways. Proving that intelligence is not synonymous with a University education.
What we now have is a beautiful example of the pitfalls of subsidizing anything over a long term. Where do you quit? Who pays the shortfalls? Can anyone in fact subsidize another’s lifestyle?
We are about to find out the answers to those questions, as Americans have subsidized our own lifestyles for years. It was never possible. We have a $63 Trillion subsidy referred to as our national debt. Who will pay the shortfalls? Can anyone in fact subsidize another’s lifestyle?
I would like to continue this thread for those who wish to contribute and I will continue to monitor it.
Hutch8of9,
Thanks for the article on Galena. Nukes in the bush huh? Hard to imagine that it is a good idea on many accounts.
Hi Mike,
I agree that situations like this beg the question of indefinite or even temporary subsidization. When I think of US examples of subsidizing populations, many, if not most, seem to be reparations for wrongs committed against those populations in the service of wealth growth and greed (think Native Americans, African Americans). So, it’s a moral issue as well as a resource issue. The morality is affordable as long as the resources exist to sustain the compensation, but what happens when the resources dry up?
That, of course, is the heart of your original question.
A related question involve the damages done to the populations by the very subsizidation meant to “help” them recover from their losses such as dependency, loss of a sustainable way of living, and a distorted (from our perspective) view of reality.
I mention “our” perspective in response to your remark about the indigenous Alaskans not being interested in the white man’s wayof of life. Was the white man interested in the indigenous way of life?
Anyway, back to your original question: For example, how long can the elderly who can no longer work be subsized through Social Security? It seems to me that many people who truly depend upon Social Security weren’t employed in jobs that paid pensions, or earned such meager wages that they subsisted paycheck to paycheck, unable to save for retirement. Is Social Security for them a kind of compensation to make up for the non payment of wages that permitted saving while they were working? I really don’t know, and I realize that even suggesting this could incite some flaming responses from your more libertarian-leaning readers.
We truly are in an unsustainable situation, or more simply, a mess, with many implications beyond just running out of oil.
Hi Kathy,
Thanks for keeping this thread going, and for digging down to what I hoped would come out.
One of my co-workers asked me years ago how it would be possible for indigenous people to continue their way of life and at the same time watch jets fly over?
I answered that I didn’t think it was possible.
To do so would also require restricting them from any of our inventions and viable advances such as refrigeration, medicine, tools, electricity, transportation, etc.
The reasoning behind what I’ve said is that they had no ability to pay for the above amenities.
Their culture and that of capitalism are incompatible, unless of course, the capitalist subsidized their lifestyle.
This of course boils down to enjoying the desirable trappings of capitalism, without having to seek the gainful employment which supports the capitalistic system. A recipe for a future disaster.
One group of people cannot subsidize the lifestyle of the other long term without straining the resources of the subsidizers.
I recognized the problem many years ago when working in the arctic. The Eskimo people disliked the Capitalist and wanted them out. However, they wanted the rifles, snowmobiles, medicine, movies and Coca-Cola left behind and a continual flow of these products for the future.
Me, I think a blend of lifestyles is desirable. There were many drawbacks to the lifestyle of say the Eskimo, and certainly ours is unsustainable. Work is overrated and simple enjoyment has been cast aside for the almighty dollar.
Balance in all things.