The Lower Hunter has the highest proportion of homes with air-conditioning in EnergyAustralia's market of five regions and it's no piddling margin. Across those five regions 53 per cent of homes are air-conditioned, while in the Upper Hunter it is 65 per cent and in the Lower Hunter 78 per cent. The penetration of domestic air-conditioning has more than doubled in a decade, creating massive spikes in power demand and massive costs for electricity retailers and consumers. The problem for those who, like me, don't have air-conditioning is that the cost of powering air-conditioners is spread across us all. That's a major reason for the $700 increase in the average annual power bill over the next three years. EnergyAustralia, for example, has 15 per cent of its network, about $1.5 billion worth, simply to meet air-conditioners' increased demand for power on the hottest days of the year.
Not only is air-conditioning an extravagance, it is often a waste. Consider the case in my Herald column today of the couple who leave the air-conditioner in the Lower Hunter house churning away all year even though they live in the house for only two weeks a year. Stops the house going musty, they say.
But more than issues of extravagance and waste, there is an ethical question: does anyone have the right to use more than their share of finite resources, to impose more heavily than others on the environment, simply because they can afford to? In other words, does money bestow the right to be an environmental grub?
Money does not excuse anyone vandalising public property, so I can't see how money can excuse anyone vandalising the public property that is the environment. Can you?
One day, and soon I hope, all households will have an allocation of electricity that will force the air-conditioned squanderers to choose either air-conditioning or lights, television and refrigeration. You'll pay for your own wastefulness then, and money won't buy you out of it. Isn't that one of my best ideas?