In Thursday’s Express News article “Energy issue puts heat on Gonzalez” Congressman Charlie Gonzales is reported to have said “…he won't support the legislation until some changes are made to protect the utility industry — particularly CPS Energy and its investments in nuclear power.” He is also quoted as saying that he’s “meeting with party leadership in an effort to ease the bill's impact on the refining industry.”
Why is the Congressman more interested protecting the short term profits of fossil fuel producers and utilities than the long term interests of his constituents? Hopefully he just doesn’t realize that the consequences of inaction or insufficient action are much more costly in the long term than any increases in energy costs in the short term.
Quoting Congressman Gonzalez in the article again - “The question I ask is can CPS Energy still deliver affordable electricity to our constituents,” he said. “You will be paying penalties if you don't meet these mandates. Going green is going to require more green.”
Mr. Gonzalez seems to forget that regardless of cost increases that might be imposed by going green they will pale by comparison to the cost of adapting to permanent drought in south Texas and the loss of agricultural production in many other parts of the country. We don't have any time left to play around, it’s now or never. Mr. Gonzalez probably won't live long enough to see the results of his actions good or bad but his children and grandchildren certainly will.
Open thread for night owls. Baker: Financial transactions tax would attack income inequality - *Dean Baker* at* Jacobin *magazine writes—*A Job-Killing Robot for Rich People: A financial transactions tax would attack income inequality by attacking ...
48 minutes ago