I went to the opera a few weeks ago. The local opera company had gotten up a production of Turandot, so I squeezed myself into my cheap suit and spend three hours being thrilled by Puccini. Getting tickets for Turandot was not easy. Many of the performances were sold out and for those that still had tickets available, it was difficult getting four cheap seats together.
As I waited for the curtain to rise on Act One, I remembered reading a statement by the poet Gary Snyder, to the effect that opera was self-sufficient in San Francisco in the 19th century. The fact that opera is no longer self-sufficient can be attributed to the fact that the economies of opera cannot be simplified by subsidizing fossil fuels.
So – what am I talking about? Don’t switch over to Karpinski just yet. The simple point Gary Snyder was trying to make – and I am now plagiarizing – is that by subsidizing fossil fuels, oil mostly, we have skewed the price of almost everything in our society, except opera.
Take food for example. We spray our soil and our crops with petrochemical pesticides, to increase the rate of production per acre. Then we load the produce into trucks full of cheap gas and they drive all over the continent. Americans spend a smaller percentage of their income on food than just about anyone on earth.
Now think about plastic. It’s made of oil and it reduces the cost of everything from construction materials to ball-point pens. But not opera.
Opera can’t be simplified by the fossil-fuel subsidy because you can’t make a soprano or tenor out of plastic. You can’t pour gasoline on an orchestra and improve its tone. So is this a good thing, this fossil-fuel subsidy? It makes everything cheaper, except opera, and many people are bored by opera.
Before you come to a conclusion on that, there’s one thing more you should know. All those savings that come to us through cheap fossil fuel aren’t true savings – they’re externalized costs. That’s an economist’s way of saying we will pay for all this in the long run. Global warming immediately comes to mind as an externalized cost of subsidizing fossil fuels. Petrochemical pesticides and plastics fill our air and water with toxic chemicals.
Those externalized costs that give us our cash-and-carry culture are paid for in a currency more precious than cash. We’re paying with our biosphere, and many among us with our health and our lives. Sad to say, but those who pay the highest costs derive the fewest benefits.
And then there’s opera. As I said, opera can’t be simplified and made cheap by subsidizing fossil fuels, so opera is no longer self-sufficient, which means the income generated selling tickets does not cover the cost of staging the opera. To make up the shortfall, opera troupes rely on large cash donations. Opera troupes get those large cash donations from – where else? – oil companies.
Opera By The Gallon
I went to the opera a few weeks ago. The local opera company had gotten up a production of Turandot, so I squeezed myself into my cheap suit and spend three hours being thrilled by Puccini. Getting tickets for Turandot was not easy. Many of the performances were sold out and for those that still had tickets available, it was difficult getting four cheap seats together.
As I waited for the curtain to rise on Act One, I remembered reading a statement by the poet Gary Snyder, to the effect that opera was self-sufficient in San Francisco in the 19th century. The fact that opera is no longer self-sufficient can be attributed to the fact that the economies of opera cannot be simplified by subsidizing fossil fuels.
So – what am I talking about? Don’t switch over to Karpinski just yet. The simple point Gary Snyder was trying to make – and I am now plagiarizing – is that by subsidizing fossil fuels, oil mostly, we have skewed the price of almost everything in our society, except opera.
Take food for example. We spray our soil and our crops with petrochemical pesticides, to increase the rate of production per acre. Then we load the produce into trucks full of cheap gas and they drive all over the continent. Americans spend a smaller percentage of their income on food than just about anyone on earth.
Now think about plastic. It’s made of oil and it reduces the cost of everything from construction materials to ball-point pens. But not opera.
Opera can’t be simplified by the fossil-fuel subsidy because you can’t make a soprano or tenor out of plastic. You can’t pour gasoline on an orchestra and improve its tone. So is this a good thing, this fossil-fuel subsidy? It makes everything cheaper, except opera, and many people are bored by opera.
Before you come to a conclusion on that, there’s one thing more you should know. All those savings that come to us through cheap fossil fuel aren’t true savings – they’re externalized costs. That’s an economist’s way of saying we will pay for all this in the long run. Global warming immediately comes to mind as an externalized cost of subsidizing fossil fuels. Petrochemical pesticides and plastics fill our air and water with toxic chemicals.
Those externalized costs that give us our cash-and-carry culture are paid for in a currency more precious than cash. We’re paying with our biosphere, and many among us with our health and our lives. Sad to say, but those who pay the highest costs derive the fewest benefits.
And then there’s opera. As I said, opera can’t be simplified and made cheap by subsidizing fossil fuels, so opera is no longer self-sufficient, which means the income generated selling tickets does not cover the cost of staging the opera. To make up the shortfall, opera troupes rely on large cash donations. Opera troupes get those large cash donations from – where else? – oil companies.