• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Outside the Beltway: The High Cost of Environmentalism

    Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa

    In Los Angeles, in the heart of California’s anemic economy, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the Department of Water and Power (DWP) hope to massively raise energy rates by a whopping 21% next year, with other rate increases slated through 2014, for a total 37% hike.

    Are the increased rates intended to pay for a budget shortfall? No.  Are they going up because the cost of energy is going up, too? Not exclusively. The increased rates would raise money to “invest” in renewable energy. In fact, Villaraigosa thought the hike was so important that he invited former Vice President Al Gore to present at the city council meeting via satellite.

    The good news is that some common sense remains in the L.A. city council chambers, and the rate increase has not yet been implemented.

    With unemployment at 12.5% in California, it would seem like now is the worst possible time for a rate hike. That fact, though, will not stop the environmental left.  They will stop at nothing to make sure people can’t afford essential things like electricity and heating oil, all in the name of unconfirmed science.

    Consumers aren’t the only ones who would take a hit under the plan. Villaraigosa also proposed a 22% rate increase for businesses and tried to hide the rate increases under the façade of creating 18,000 jobs His arguments fell on deaf ears at the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, where they voted against his proposal saying “They’re just making those [jobs] up.”

    It is just another costly tax increase that threatens to kill whatever growth there is in the stagnated economy. There is some good news though. Not many council members are in favor of the plan, and those that are say the extra money should go toward improving the DWP. Councilman Paul Krekorian said the plan was “an extraordinary burden on our homeowners and businesses” and  “unacceptable.”

    It is a telling sign that even in a place as liberal as Los Angeles, there is as much opposition to a progressive “green jobs” initiative as there is in this case. It just might be another indicator of the growing skepticism about global warming. Not even the presence of former Vice President Al Gore was enough to sway council members to pass a tax that would lead to more unemployment, more people unable to pay bills, and would worsen the recession in a state that is floundering.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    13 Responses to Outside the Beltway: The High Cost of Environmentalism

    1. Space, Bisbee, Az says:

      And how much money did they pay Gore to"gore" the public with his green spin machine, that makes him money hand over fist? His lies are well know by now, sounds like a swan song for some one in L.A..

    2. Jack Metcalf, UT says:

      If California and its irresponsible elected officials keep this up, you won't have anyone to tax.

      The good and intelligent members of your society will follow my lead and move to another state.

      How these people keep getting elected beats me. I think you are all unconscionable or nuts..

      May you live in peace if not prosperity.

    3. Jack Metcalf, UT says:

      For a more detailed view of my views visit my blog:

    4. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    5. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Every time leftist find themselves short of factual data, their supplemental angry screeching ends with “lie, lies and more lies”. Who’s lying? Neither myself, the HF nor most of the commentators on this blog revel in fabricated myths or live in an ideologue’s fantasy. We’re mostly practical folks who seek truth and blind justice. We don’t see ourselves as crusaders attacking conjured-up greedy neglectful bogymen. On the contrary. We’re the first ones to stand for responsible stewardship, conservation, fair treatment, individual rights and compassion for others. That’s a fact.

    6. April, Colorado says:

      Take a trip to L.A. and go jogging down Laurel Canyon Blvd…good luck breathing…better wear a mask.

    7. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      April, are you familiar with the topography of Los Angeles? It was called the Valley of Smokes by the original settlers. Big surprise the air quality is a little less than perfect, far better than it was 40 years ago. Today the place is an overpopulated fish bowl. Its only relief being the San Gorgonio Pass into Palm Springs, a favored retirement spot for those seeking sunshiny days.

    8. Brad, Detroit, MI says:


      Typical liberal argument tactic. The emotional Straw man theory.

      Don't worry about using facts or figures or that thing they call "reasoning". I will just re-direct the conversation away from the truth. Go back to the Huffington Compost.

    9. Lynne says:

      California: The even higher cost of environmentalism: Fresh from their victory of squelching water supplies, farming, and related employment in the Central Valley, environmentalists are aglee over the announcement that the Obama EPA plans to impose $36 million in fines on the top 400 "polluting" businesses in the Los Angeles area, including Orange, Riverside & San Bernardino counties. In a story filed by Dan Danelski at 10:00 p.m. on March 27, 2010 for the Riverside Press Enterprise:

      "Southern California is facing federal sanctions for failing to meet an air-pollution health standard that was repealed by the Bush administration in 2004."

      "The sanctions are expected to cost the region's largest industries and utilities millions of dollars in new fees every year until the standard is met."

      "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is requiring the regional air-quality agency to impose the fees beginning next year on the 400-plus top-polluting industries and utilities. The region covers the four-county air basin between the ocean and the San Bernardino Mountains."

      The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) says they plan to bargain down the fines to only $8 million per year, yet environmentalists oppose this:

      "If the district did not impose the fees, the region could face penalties such as the loss of federal highway dollars, or the federal government could force new pollution-cutting measures, district spokesman San Atwood said."

      "David Pettit, a Santa Monica-based senior attorney for the Natural Resource Defense Council, said the whole point is to make the air safe to breathe.

      The fee reductions sought by the air district don't meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act, he said. "We think it is illegal."

      In other news: unemployment in the Inland Empire is 15% (not counting those who have given up looking."

    10. Tim AZ says:

      I wish they would execute every liberal policy they can dream up upon their citizenry. This would certainly serve as living lesson of the cruelties of liberalism and its abject failure.

    11. Washington State says:

      Missing is the damage or destruction of many of the 300 million open cycle engines in America caused by putting ethanol in the fuel. As the environmentalist fuel of choice, it is a DISASTER. Read the OPEI report at http://www.opei.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/1926. Ethanol endangers about $2 TRILLION in US equipment. AND replacing the equipment sends money to China, and the junk to the landfill.

      Want to save money? End the ethanol mandate. Doing so would lower the cost of fuel, lower our repair bills, and improve the environment. "What?", you say? Yes. Ethanol dramatically increases ground level ozone formation. So much so that the WA State Dept of Ecology, personally told me in 2008, that any more than 2% ethanol in the fuel caused Seattle to exceed EPA ozone attainment levels. With LA's UV index and mountain containment, it must be at least as bad.

      Why won' t the press report on this?

    12. Sam, WI says:

      With all the heavy taxes and regulations, I'm surprised there's any businesses left in California.

      Although, thanks to Jim Doyle and his ilk, Wisconsin isn't much better.

    13. S Rubicon, Southcent says:

      The 'unintended' consequences of many policies, always seem to escape the notice of those seeking to "make our lives better for us." Personally, there are more times I wish they would let me live in misery than there are I wish they would succeed.

      The issue is balance. The problem is, once zealotry sets in, the zealots cannot see balance, only their utopian world order.

      Business is not evil. Americans, (thats you & me) work at those businesses & they pay us so we can pay those taxes. W/o those businesses, we all go broke & live in the streets. If those seeking to make the world a better place, according expressly to their view, many more face unemployment & living in those streets.

      Has anyone noticed even the Governor is doing commercials trying to get people to come to California? Its beginning to look like an exodus. And many other high tax states face the same problem.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.