Heating costs may reprioritize survival

Home heating costs are predicted to rise 30% to 70% this winter. The increase, the steepest in any of our lifetimes, comes when economic security for many Minnesotans is shaky at best.

(Meanwhile, during the past week Exxon-Mobil Corp. posted third-quarter profits of $11 billion -- that is billion with a "b" and that’s profits, not overall revenue -- the highest quarterly profit ever reported by any company anywhere. The other giant transnational oil corporations were not far behind. But I digress…)

The governor of Minnesota mentioned recently that he would like to convene a special session of the legislature. Great! I thought. Finally my state government is taking seriously its responsibilities to the people of this state. They're going to talk about how to help people already economically stressed, who are simply unable to come up with an extra $100 or $200 a month to stay warm this winter. Hey, maybe they’d even think of putting a cap on how much oil companies can charge, when we’re talking about a basic need like heat in a cold climate.

But no. That is not with the governor wants to talk about.

What does he want to talk about? What is more important than this? Stadiums! Not one, not two, but three of them! For professional baseball and football teams with millionaire owners and millionaire players! And for the University of Minnesota, where our lawmakers can't seem to come up with adequate funding to keep tuition affordable for Minnesota students, but public funding for sports is always on the table! Stadiums to which the public has repeatedly and overwhelmingly said "NO!" for at least a decade in petition drives, referendums and opinion polls.

And oh, I mustn’t forget, there's another extremely important, urgent matter that the legislature didn't have enough time for in its regular session: a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. They’ve got to drop everything to make sure those couples can never have equal rights in long-term, loving relationships! Sheesh!

In Canada, where winters are very cold, several provincial governments are coming up with plans to help their residents weather the economic blow of unexpectedly high heating costs this winter. Manitoba is helping middle- and low-income people pay for energy-efficiency measures in their homes. Newfoundland and Nova Scotia are setting aside money to subsidize heat bills for low-income residents.

But not, apparently, Minnesota, which often has the lowest daily temperature reported in the lower 48 states during the winter months. Our elected-officeholders evidently have no plans to help stretched-to-the-limit poor and middle-income families who may be facing the prospect of falling behind on their heat bills, turning the thermostat down so they are perpetually cold and more susceptible to getting sick, and maybe even having the heat turned off. But they might very well find the time and money to help out wealthy team owners who want to feed at the public trough, and put discrimination against GLBT people into our constitution.

Warmth in the winter is a basic survival necessity. Because it is, and because heat sources usually come directly from the earth (natural gas, coal, wood, etc.) perhaps the rising costs of fuel will help bring us back as a society to our natural connection with the earth and to some clarity about what we really need and what we ought to be providing to each other through society and government.

Maybe our decisionmakers will refocus their attention from things like sports stadiums, which seem important to them now, but in the larger picture are about his trivial as it gets. It seems possible that our whole economic system could be reprioritized as basic survival ceases to be an assumption and rises higher on the spectrum of what is economically important (thank you, Exxon-Mobil!). As survival becomes once again, as it was for most of human history, a major concern of daily life, superceding expensive play and certainly eclipsing the interest in trying to control people’s private behavior.

But not in Minnesota, not yet.

Comments

[amy lenzo]

If poor people's concerns were as important to our elected officials as the issues effecting the rich, I don't think we would be this situation.

I'm concerned about how high the human cost would have to be before higher energy costs would really make a difference in the policys our decision-makers support.

[BobW]

In BC we have been helping churches exercise leadership in energy conservation by conducting energy audits and making recommendations on GREEN energy retrofits. Some things are very simple and inexpensive such as insulating hot water pipes and thermal sealing windows. Energy Canada has also offered low interest loans to retrofit boilers, insulation and low energy lighting. In the US class action suits have been effective at changing corporate policy (eg. tobacco) in the absense of political will. Cutting off heat from low income families ought to qualify as some sort of misdemeanor.

[Betsy Barnum]

You're right, Amy--and not only the poor, but anyone who isn't super-rich is now more or less ignored by policymakers. I'm sure there's little hope of a reprioritization, not because ordinary people are having trouble surviving, anyway. Now if--and I'd say when--the price of fuel begins to have a negative impact on consumerism, when the wealthy owners either have to reduce their profits in order to keep their products affordable, or ordinary folks in droves are buying less new stuff because high-priced fuel has driven prices of lots of things too high, then we might see some attention to the issue.

[Betsy Barnum]

Bob, the same type of activity is going on here, regarding faith communities. For several years I was the "staff organizer" for a project called New Earth Partnership, engaging congregations in deepening their care for creation through worship, education, outreach and management of their building and property. And with the hope that congregation members would take the same lessons home and apply them.

We had a hard time maintaining funding, and I no longer work on this. But it's heartening to see communities of faith taking seriously their stewardship of the Earth and ultimately, perhaps, even going behond that to a biocentric attitude of being "part of" instead of "in charge of."

[Ann Jarnet]

I worry about the "working poor" in all of this. Energy efficiency audits can help homeowners adapt their houses (new windows, sealing invisible holes, etc.) but government subsidies for this do not pay for everything. The working poor, who earn minimum wage (under $10/hr), already have trouble making ends meet. They won,t be able to buy new windows which must fall into a range of acceptable criteria in order to qualify for a subsidy. Electricity doesn't just heat houses, it also makes washers and dryers work and the working poor don't always have the most up-to-date energy efficient models. In fact, they often have very old machines which keep getting patched up with parts from other old machines. Result: very poor energy efficiency which hikes up people's hydro bills.

Where I live, people have wood stoves. This year, those who cut wood can see the opportunity: the price has gone up by 40%. Reason? fuel for ATVs which go into the woods; fuel for the trucks that bring ATVs to where the woods start; fuel for the saws that cut the wood.... and I could go on. Since people are afraid, they agree to this 40% increase, fearing that it'll be worse next year and feeling they need to stock up.

I'm not convinced that the Canadian government's response of sending a cheque to the poorest will help. When this method was used last, thousands of prisoners got a cheque, cheques were cut to thousands of dead people -- it was a holy mess. Rich folk got cheques while poorer folk were left out in the cold. Just this year, I, who have no business receiving anything, got a cheque for a refund of the goods and services tax. The amount? $5.18. When I was in government I was told it costs $75.00 to actually cut a cheque. So, the government actually lost money in refunding me something I had no business receiving. Total stupidity.

[heather witham]

Yes, it's all very worrying. I think the government should subsidize heating, give grants for home energy efficiency (making it free) and then tax the hell out of luxury uses of energy. It's time people got with the program and smelled the fading fumes.