DEBRIS.COMgood for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm

There’s a great lesson in method acting in the ‘making of’ clip on the School of Rock DVD. Click the image to see Black in action (3ivx codec required for playback). (Note: the soundtrack is not really safe for work.)

Task: restock toilet paper in bathroom.

Problem: a few rolls of toilet paper remain from the last restocking.

Question: where do the new rolls go?

…

Answer: behind the old rolls, of course. If you put them in front, the two remaining from last time may never get used!

In January, I expressed wonder at PG&E’s “new math;” in spite of a bankruptcy that would leave ratepayers on the hook for a $7 billion bailout, the utility announced a 4.1% reduction in electricity rates. It made no sense then, but makes perfect sense now. I think my theory has turned out to be correct — it was a distraction. Now that a few months have gone by since anybody gave any thought to their electricity rates, PG&E has filed an application to raise them.

Two confusing and contradictory inserts accompanied my most recent statement. Multiple paragraphs of legalese can be summarized by this excerpt from one of the two pamphlets:

Does this mean electricity will cost me more?
Yes.

A table of revenue figures and percentages of change appears in each document. Curiously, the percentages are radically different. One shows a “Percent Change” for residential customers of 2.8%. The other shows 5.4%. I suspect one pamphlet was authored by PG&E, and the other by the PUC (Public Utilities Commission).

There’s one telling example:

The bill for a typical bundled customer using 542 kWh per month would increase $3.76 from $66.09 to $69.85. The average usage for customers using more than twice their baseline allowance is 876. The bill for this average bundled customer would increase by approximately $24 from $125.83 to $149.79 per month.

That’s 5.7% and 19%, respectively. Hmm, so much for that 4.1 reduction, eh?

The critical thing to remember is that since 1970, electricity rates have climbed an average of 6% per year. There is no reason to believe they’ll ever go down.

Ironically, the pending rate increase is good news for me; it means, in effect, that my photovoltaic system will pay for itself sooner.

Last year, after a lengthy exploration of several of the things that are wrong with the world, I posed the question “how can anyone with children not be an environmentalist?” It drew a response from numerous readers, some of whom who proved to me that it is possible, even now, to raise a family under the illusion of abundance.

(By “abundance” I don’t mean shelves full of trademarked food products or mega-chain coffee shops at every intersection. I mean the simple things, like clean air and clean water.)

Anyway, I found a proverb that encapsulates my feelings about the issue. It turned up in a story about a guy named Michael Deakin, who recycles old-growth redwood from Sonoma County barns. Recounting a lesson taught to him by Salish (Indian) Chief Dan George of Burret Inlet, British Columbia, Deakin said: “We didn’t inherit the land from our ancestors; we are borrowing it from our children.”

That idea fits my worldview like a favorite pair of hemp sneakers. Imagine how differently you’d act if you believed that to be true. And then tell me about it. I’m curious to hear your stories.

“Let the troublemaker kids go across first. If they make it, we’ll let the rest of the class go too.”

Taken at the Lynn Canyon Suspension Bridge, north of Vancouver.