California County Bans SmartMeter Installations

kiwimate writes "Marin County in California has passed an ordinance (PDF) banning the installation of smart meters in unincorporated Marin. Among the reasons given are privacy concerns associated with measuring energy usage data moment by moment and the potential for adverse impact on emergency communication systems used by first responders and amateur radio operators. The ordinance also comments that 'the SmartMeters program ... could well actually increase total electricity consumption and therefore the carbon footprint,' citing 'some engineers and energy conservation experts.'" The ordinance also mentions "significant health questions" raised about "increased electromagnetic frequently radiation (EMF) emitted by the wireless technology in SmartMeters."

Comments

Grow Ops in Marin?

[spun]

Could be the real reason for those privacy concerns, and more power to them.

Re:Grow Ops in Marin?

[PopeRatzo]

When there is technology to eliminate wasteful use of human and other resources

Seeing jobs for people as a "wasteful use of human resources" is one of the symptoms of why the rise of transnational corporations is destroying so many societies. Why is the corporate profit motive never questioned, but the motive to provide for one's family and oneself is discounted?

What do you say we don't start thinking in those terms until we've gotten to the point where everyone has sufficient food, shelter, clothing and education?

A company should not be forced to support hundreds of workers it doesn't need

Why not? If a company is going to profit from operating within a society, why shouldn't it be expected to support that society? If a company registers a patent in the US, then places it in a subsidiary in Holland, then a subsidiary in Ireland, and then back to Holland, finally licensing it back to itself to the US subsidiary in order to avoid paying taxes in the country that it sells the product, why shouldn't it be "forced" to contribute to the well-being of the people who comprise that market?

I think we underestimate the danger of believing that profit without responsibility is OK. More than thirty percent of the wealth of the bottom 75% of Americans just evaporated from 2000 to 2008 during a time when the largest corporations profits grew. Can you figure out where that trend heads?

Re:Grow Ops in Marin?

[icebike]

[citation needed]

The fact that people with smart meters continue to get TV, FM Radio, short wave, police and ambulance radios, and garage doors open just fine, with no interference and no problems would SEEM TO SUGGEST you have no clue about what you are speaking.

Re:Grow Ops in Marin?

[jwhitener]

The middle class have more "things" to keep them happy, sure. But it generally requires two people working full time to have that home, car or 2, and all the comforts that we believe we need (cable tv, etc..). In 1950, it was 1 full time worker for that home, car, etc..

But I would guess that the post you replied to is mostly looking at income inequality.
Graph of income

1970 until now, the middle class really hasn't had a pay increase, when adjusted by inflation. The middle has stayed middle, (or slightly gone below historic middle depending on how you view the data). The rich, on the other hand, have gotten progressively more rich in comparison.

Wealth really is concentrating at the top. Just because you have enough gadgets to keep you happy doesn't necessarily mean you are receiving a fair slice of societies pie.

It is pretty interesting looking at income inequality and economic depressions. Look how similar income distribution was right before the great depression and right before our current depression historic graph