Greetings from
The Publisher . . .
Fossil Fuels and the Rise in Healthcare Costs
By now, everyone's probably heard he argument that solar produced electricity is a great idea for the future—but for now, it just isn't cost effective. Fossil fuels, in comparison, are the cheaper way to go. I have to admit that hearing that gives me a slow (non-solar) burn.
Given the heads-up I noticed that my June 27 electric bill, $3.86, had jumped to $5.27 July 27 and then after the heat wave went to $15.44—an increase of 400%. I too wanted to know why solar was so expensive.
The system cost alone—over the 25 years it's guaranteed to run—adds over $43 a month more! The fact that it is more likely to run for 40 years—and cost closer to $27 a month—settled me down.
So my system costs me between $60 and $75 a month, which includes the cost of the system and the electricity.
Since I wanted to know why solar was
“so expensive” I began to research and it took me far beyond solar to the cost of all types of energy. The real, hidden costs of using fossil fuels (FFs) are enormous.
I saw that in order to say FFs are cheaper you really have to be looking through a microscope. When you use a microscope, of course, you have block out the rest of the room in order to see anything. The rest of the room, in this case, would be the planet—and it's inhabitants. Even considering that the Earth is a relatively small planet, that's quite an oversight.
FFs account for 85% of our fuel use. About half of that goes to transportation and half to power plants. One-third of that comes from the Middle East. Without changing our energy policy that will be 2/3 by 2020.
Here's a small portion of what I found:
From the Union of Concerned Scientists: Some of the energy costs are not included in consumer utility or gas bills, and not paid for by FF companies are human health problems caused by air pollution from the burning of coal and oil; damage to land from coal mining and to miners from black lung disease; environmental degradation caused by global warming, acid rain, and water pollution; and national security costs, such as protecting foreign sources of oil. Clean air is essential to life and good health.
What's not included on our gas/utility bills is the human health problems caused by air pollution; damage to environment caused by acid rain, and water pollution; and national security costs, such as protecting foreign sources of oil.
From an Australian news report I found: Ultra-fine particles, gaseous irritants, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) contribute to a number of health problems, for example: lung cancer deaths and accelerated tumor growth; increased cardiovascular disease and myocardial infarcts; limited blood flow and increased blood clotting; increased sensitivity to bacterial products in airways; and more severe common viral asthma.
Adverse effects of exhaust pollutants now include increased infant mortality (New Scientist July 3, 2004); chronic deficits in lung development of children aged 10-18 years (New England Journal of Medicine, September 9, 2004); and acute heart attacks (New England Journal of Medicine, October 20, 2004).
Twice as many people died in Sydney in 2000 from air pollution than from road accidents (Australian Bureau of Regional Economics Report, Sep., 2003). The cost of health impacts from vehicle pollution in Sydney alone is between $2 billion and $3 billion annually. Children are more susceptible than adults (except the elderly) to the adverse effects of air pollution (CATF Report, February, 2005).
The major political parties at federal and state levels (in Australia), the oil companies and car manufacturers have known that while “leaded” petrol is a health hazard, “unleaded” petrol has even greater toxic properties. The decision was made, it seems, to cut lead so it did not poison the “catalytic converter” and knowingly introduce substances that would increase cancer rates.
Immense benefits in reduction in health costs can be achieved by a 50 per cent reduction of particle pollution as demonstrated in the Tokyo Case Study.
The obstacles in the way to achieve such benefits, with cleaner fuels, continue to include a compromised political will coupled with unconscionable corporate conduct, it concluded.
A study published in the LA Daily News on March 6, 2002, focusing specifically on Los Angeles County, estimated that 3,500 deaths each year relate to the inhalation of fine particles, which also trigger over 200,000 asthma attacks annually in LA county and deprive its economy of nearly two million work days lost to sickness. In the province of Ontario, air pollution costs were at least $1 billion annually for hospital admissions, emergency room visits, and worker absenteeism.
In 2003 when gas costs between $1.50-2.00 a gallon, InvestorIdeas.com stated: Health care costs are rising every year. Asthma cases have increased 160% over the past 15 years and over 5 million children in the U.S. now suffer from asthma.
The volatility of oil prices is a very significant risk factor for the stability of the world's economies. We can lower our healthcare costs, reduce our air, water and thermal pollution, develop a more stable economy and become a far more secure nation if we just begin this inevitable process of evolution toward renewable energy sources.
From a study by the working group on Public Health and Fossil-Fuel Combustion: Implementing climate policies now will yield immediate benefits locally and globally by reducing particulate air pollution, by slowing the buildup of greenhouse gases, and by protecting public health. Over the next two decades, at least 8 million deaths could be avoided.
Air pollution from fossil fuel use has immediate local and global impacts on public health, because fine airborne particles can move hundreds or thousands of kilometers to sicken or kill people.
How should we view this? More seriously and passionately than we have been, I have to think.
I happened to see a rerun last month of a Gene Hackman movie called Class Action. He played a lawyer representing those who were in the Meridian automobile when it exploded. When the fictional Argo Motors made the car, they knew the condition that would cause the explosion. They had their “bean counter” statistically calculate how often it would happen, how much it would cost them in law suits ($20 billion), the cost to fix the problem ($50 billion) and concluded it would be more “cost effective” to sell the vehicles without fixing the problem.
Hackman's character was incensed that the personal suffering, injuries and loss of life caused by these exploding cars was not considered. He went after them. It was a good, fictional movie; but enough like real-life to be uncomfortable.
Calculating the cost of a sick child or someone dying is difficult. Maybe that's why it's left out when figuring the cost of FFs. Shouldn't we be outraged too?
The challenge is that we all rely on FFs one way or another. We can get smarter about our daily buying choices and habits to a certain extent, but we can't totally change society overnight nor can these industries. Although the film The 11 th Hour suggested we can change “rapidly,” that will take more than we're giving now as a society. Our government has no real sustainable energy policy—just real, though hidden costs.
So we have the chance to rebuild. In that rebuilding isn't that the place to insist on a much higher standard?
What is the biggest complaint about energy and the summer heat, for instance? Everyone turns on the air conditioning and we create the biggest strain of the year on the energy grid on hot summer days. Aren't we told that's the very reason we need new power plants—to prevent summer blackouts?
On the other hand, when is solar power at it's most reliable? What time of year does it produce the most electricity? When the sun shines the most—during the day in the summer. The more local it is, the more effective solar is.
A study by the International Centre for Technology Assessment stated that subsidies to FF industries and related environmental and healthcare costs raise the actual cost of a gallon of gas up to ten times the pump price. That would be over $30 a gallon right now.
The next time we hear from bean counters that FFs are more “cost effective” shouldn't they laughed off stage? These “experts” are also often part of the cost aren't they?
If it's simply a failure to look up from the microscope and see the room we live in, it's time we tell them to look around. If they already know, I'm bothered. How different is that from the fictional Argo Motors?
I have to admit I have fun pouring 5-gallon cans of soybean oil into my fuel tank, but I still use 50% low-sulfur diesel and both fuels burn oxygen. Ultimately only solar powered electric cars will eliminate transportation related air pollution. But we know one solution. That's a direction.
The essence is, medical costs are going up because we're fueling them.
Given the subsidies paid to FF companies like Exxon and coal mining companies—$235 billion a year—and their record profits, maybe it's an appropriate time to ask Exxon to fund our healthcare system. There is a direct relationship to their doing business. We should know now that FFs are causing our explosion.
Perhaps they could pay the $5 billion fine they never paid when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989. They were still in court last month fighting it. Wonder what the interest is on that?
At the least, isn't it time we upped the standard on new projects? There are good solar options—and do believe, they're much cheaper.
If we sit back and wait, thinking that some day technology will make it easy for us—we'll wait for solar paint, for instance—we are also saying we are willing to pay the costs now—in dollars, lives and sunsets. Replace your light bulbs with compact fluorescents. It makes a difference.
Meanwhile, the sun still shines, have a great month,
Steve
HOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH
