Category Archives: fraud

ArcticPro Air Conditioners Are A Fraud – 380 $$$ for one you can buy for 100

Posted on by
Reply

Normally I reserve this space for the freezer pack and fan “coolers” that make the paper every year. This year they actually put an air conditioner in them. Do not get excited however because they are still a ripoff. One, anyone could modify a regular small super efficient air conditioner to do this. Two, they require a exhaust port at every window you would use and it does not look like you can move the ports from window to window. Three, they are really really inefficient air conditioners but they hide that by reducing the price to operate to the smallest unit of measure possible. Finally they take out an ad that costs $1,500 dollars per day (like the coin sellers, the gold buyers, and the fake antiques roadshow people), where if they where legit they would just send out a press release. But with respect and the highest praise to this lady blogger, while using nicer language, she tears them a new you know what. Way to go lady!

http://daughternumberthree.blogspot.com/2011/06/articpro-air-conditioners-not-free-and.html

:}

Just a taste here. Go bookmark her page.

:}

Thursday, June 16, 2011

ArticPro Air Conditioners — Not Free, and Not the Best Choice

The UMS designers have outdone themselves in making the ad appear to be a free giveaway. The use of a black reversed box at top left with MINNESOTA DISTRIBUTION NOTICE and the year just above it, I would say, is designed to mimic the look of government notices, such as IRS publications. There’s the usual UMS limited availability offer (only 1,573 units!), now embellished with a county-by-county listing that makes the ad look even more official.

Nowhere in the top half of the ad is a price given or the fact that you have to buy the machines even mentioned — for instance, there’s no price called out in larger type with a dollar sign anywhere in the ad, including the call to action box at lower right.

It’s been several months since I saw an ad in the local papers from the Universal Media Syndicate, but their newest product appears to follow the pattern of their many earlier offers.

Today’s Star Tribune contained this full-page ad for an ArcticPro™ portable air conditioner:

Full page ad for ArcticPro air conditioner by Universal Media Syndicate

The UMS designers have outdone themselves in making the ad appear to be a free giveaway. The use of a black reversed box at top left with MINNESOTA DISTRIBUTION NOTICE and the year just above it, I would say, is designed to mimic the look of government notices, such as IRS publications. There’s the usual UMS limited availability offer (only 1,573 units!), now embellished with a county-by-county listing that makes the ad look even more official.

Nowhere in the top half of the ad is a price given or the fact that you have to buy the machines even mentioned — for instance, there’s no price called out in larger type with a dollar sign anywhere in the ad, including the call to action box at lower right.

:}

Go there and read. More next week.

:}

China’s Nuclear Power Program Pauses Briefly

Posted on by
Reply

That is right. After one of the worst nuclear accidents in history, in its own backyard the Fukushima Power Plant Meltdown barely slowed the Chinese quest for megawatts. While Spain and other countries review their plants and Germany has renounced its programs altogether, the Chinese plunge ahead.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/15/china-nuclear-plants-pass-inspections

China’s nuclear power plants pass safety inspections

Regulators give country’s 13 reactors the all-clear following checks ordered in wake of Fukushima disaster

nuclear power 
The Daya Bay nuclear power station in Guangdong province, south China. Inspectors have given the country’s existing reactors the all-clear. Photograph: Adrian Bradshaw/EPA

China has moved a step closer towards resuming its ambitious nuclear power plans after it was revealed that safety inspectors have given the country’s 13 reactors the all-clear.

The clean bill of health makes it more likely that Beijing will not follow the example of other countries – most recently German, Italy and Japan – who have promised to scale back or abandon nuclear power in the wake of the meltdown at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant in March.

China has the world’s biggest nuclear expansion plans with a goal of more than 100 reactors by 2020, but it suspended permits for new plants after the tsunami disaster in Japan.

The government said it would not be resumed until existing plants were checked, construction plans reviewed and a new national safety framework put in place.

That process is now well under way, according to a statement by the deputy environment minister, Li Ganjie, posted on a government website. As well as the completed checks for plants in operation, reviews of facilities under construction would be finished by October, he said.

Few analysts expect China to trim or delay targets that were included in the latest five-year economic plan to meet the power demands of a growing economy, while reducing the country’s reliance on greenhouse gas-emitting fuel sources.

But critical voices have grown louder. Professor He Zuoxiu, who helped to develop China’s first atomic bomb, caused a storm last month when he claimed that plans to ramp up production of nuclear energy twentyfold by 2030 could be as disastrous as the Great Leap Forward.

:}

More tomorrow.
:}

Ugly SB 1562 – This is the worst utility legislation I have seen

Posted on by
Reply

When it was SB14 I said here that it was a huge rip off and that it stood 150 years of utility regulation on its head. The change in number has not changed the essence. Lisa Madigan will probably sue. As will the ICC. I may never vote for Governor Quinn again. Both my State Rep and my State Senator voted FOR it I am sure. But I didn’t vote for them anyway. This makes dumb and dumber look like Steven Hawking and Einstein. I am not the only one who thinks so.

http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2011/06/01/illinois-smart-grid-legislation-faces-opposition/

Illinois smart-grid legislation faces opposition

By

Gloria Shur Bilchik

The Illinois legislature is considering a bill that allows electric companies to raise rates for consumers in exchange for infrastructure improvements. Ameren and ComEd are pushing for passage of SB 1652, which would allow yearly rate increases to consumers. Electric companies claim that the improvements listed in the bill would save customers money down the line, in exchange for rate increases now.

The improvements specified in SB 1652 include implementation of a “smart grid” to the Illinois system. The smart grid would allow better monitoring of electricity produced and demand by consumers. This allows the electric grid to support the addition of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, from companies separate from the electric company. The bill states that such additions of renewable energy to the grid would count towards electric company requirements by the state for renewable energy. The smart grid would give second- party producers, consumers and the electric company real- time updates on usage, production and current price of electricity.

The Citizens Utility Board (CUB) initially opposed the measure as being over-generous to the companies, vague on improvements to be performed and expensive for consumers. Improvements to the bill currently include a five- year sunset clause, limiting rate increases to 2.5% annually, and removal of gas utilities from the bill. CUB has recognized the potential of smart grid implementation to save money for consumers, provided implementation is done right. Even with these improvements, CUB states that further changes are required to specify exactly what improvements will be done by the companies. Correct implementation can save consumers money.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Governor Pat Quinn are on record as opposing the legislation, due to the increased costs for consumers. Madigan points out that ComEd recently received approval for a rate hike worth $156 million. Lobbyists for ComEd started pushing for the new legislation the day after the rate hike had been approved. In a written statement, Madigan said “their legion of lobbyists continues to push legislation that will require consumers to fund billions more in guaranteed profits. This new proposal is just more of the same: a plan that hits consumers where it hurts the most — their wallets.”

:}

Back to beautiful tomorrow.

:}

The Week After Earth Day – Chernobyl

Posted on by
Reply

I have wanted to say some things about the situation at Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant for awhile. The content you see in the Media are just so bogus. First they want to prattle on about a melt down and the chances of an explosion “like Chernobyl”.

I scream at the television, “The reactors scrammed or were off line”. Ten Mile Island and Chernobyl were both online when their catastrophes occurred. Shutting down 10 mile was their big challenge. Chernobyl was an atomic explosion that sent material 4 or 5 miles in the air. Their big challenge was preventing a China Syndrome. Fukushima was always going to be a local nonthreatening event. Dramatic – Tragic – Fool hearty but nonetheless local.

The media want to prittle prattle along about reactor types and containment vessels. They never talk about powerhouse design. Reactors do one thing they generate steam. That is it. And that is why I am opposed to nuclear power in general. There are so many simpler and safer ways to generate steam that nuclear power is a joke. Once promoted by national governments because they wanted to piggy back their nuclear weapons programs on to “local power programs”. So we will use US powerplants an example of power house design and then compare disasters.

Yes, 10 powerplants in the US use the Mark 1 reactors like what were in 4 of the reactors at Fukushima. But in the US there is “triple containment” and “plain water” steam turbine loops. That means that when 10 Mile Island malfunctioned they simply vented a bunch of radioactive steam which immediately killed about 100 people and eventually killed about 300 babies and then turned the reactor off (scrammed). The temperatures soared to 5000 degress, the fuel melted, the cooling system worked and there it sits today with a puddle of melted fuel in the bottom of the reactor vessel. That should have been the end of Nuclear Power as we know it. At Fukushima they have “double containment” powerhouses that uses radioactive water to drive their turbines. All nuclear reactors have to be shielded or sheathed  for people to be able to get close to them to operate them. So even Chernobyl had a “single” containment vessel. In Fukushima they had that and a containment pad. Actually the pad was kind of ingenious. It consists of varying layers of concrete, steel, boron and lead. This was supposed to make a China Syndrome impossible because it would self seal the waste if it tried to melt through. BUT they used that argument to actually cheapen and make more dangerous their powerhouse designs. They provided no exterior containment system and they drove their turbines with radioactive steam. Additionally they built the cooling systems on one pad and their power generation systems on a separate pad guaranteeing that the cooling systems would break in an earthquake. So yes, there were explosions at Fukushima but not at the dynamite tonnage level that happened at Chernobyl. Fukushima was like a fire cracker.

While Fukushima is a local event that was a disaster waiting to happen, Chernobyl was a momentous international disaster waiting for someone to pull the trigger. It was a graphite reactor with a single containment wall, sitting by a lake right at the water table with an inadequate cooling system. Pull the trigger they did. The point being the Media does not understand Nuclear Power any better than the public does and yet this “magic genie” produces 20% of this countries electricity. Things have gotta change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

Chernobyl disaster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Changes must be reviewed before being displayed on this page.show/hide details
This article is about the 1986 nuclear plant accident in Ukraine. For more, see Chernobyl (disambiguation).
Chernobyl disaster
Chernobyl Disaster.jpg 
The nuclear reactor after the disaster. Reactor 4 (center). Turbine building (lower left). Reactor 3 (center right).
Date 26 April 1986
Time 01:23:45 (Moscow Time UTC+3)
Location Pripyat, Ukrainian SSR, Soviet Union, now Ukraine
 

Location of Chernobyl nuclear power plant

 

The abandoned city of Pripyat with Chernobyl plant in the distance

 

Radio-operated bulldozers being tested before use

 

Abandoned housing blocks in Pripyat

The Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear accident that occurred on 26 April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Ukrainian SSR (now Ukraine). An explosion and fire released large quantities of radioactive contamination into the atmosphere, which spread over much of Western Russia and Europe. It is considered the worst nuclear power plant accident in history, and is one of only two classified as a level 7 event on the International Nuclear Event Scale (the other being the Fukushima I nuclear incident, which is considered far less serious and has caused no direct deaths).[1] The battle to contain the contamination and avert a greater catastrophe ultimately involved over 500,000 workers and cost an estimated 18 billion rubles, crippling the Soviet economy.[2]

The disaster began during a systems test on 26 April 1986 at reactor number four of the Chernobyl plant, which is near the town of Pripyat. There was a sudden power output surge, and when an emergency shutdown was attempted, a more extreme spike in power output occurred, which led to a reactor vessel rupture and a series of explosions. These events exposed the graphite moderator of the reactor to air, causing it to ignite.[3] The resulting fire sent a plume of highly radioactive smoke fallout into the atmosphere and over an extensive geographical area, including Pripyat. The plume drifted over large parts of the western Soviet Union and Europe. From 1986 to 2000, 350,400 people were evacuated and resettled from the most severely contaminated areas of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.[4][5] According to official post-Soviet data,[6][7] about 60% of the fallout landed in Belarus.

The accident raised concerns about the safety of the Soviet nuclear power industry, as well as nuclear power in general, slowing its expansion for a number of years and forcing the Soviet government to become less secretive about its procedures.[8][notes 1]

Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have been burdened with the continuing and substantial decontamination and health care costs of the Chernobyl accident. Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers.[9] A UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary enormously: the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest it could reach 4,000;[10] a Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more;[11] a Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 excess deaths occurred between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination.[12]

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

The Illinois Power Agency Once Had Promise – Where is Lisa Madigan now

Posted on by
Reply

After all of the legal and political wrangling in 2007, the Illinois Power Agency seemed a dream come true. An agency that guaranteed to keep electrical prices competitive or they would step in and buy electricity for the state at a set rate. They published the staffing requirements in the newspaper. They were excessive I thought at the time. They wanted Ph.d.s and Masters degrees in pretty exotic subjects like power generation analysis and such. But now they have hired only 2 staff out of what was supposed to be 25. Wow! Where is Lisa Madigan now?

http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-8525-staterss-power-buyer-under-fire.html

Thursday, April 7,2011

State’s power buyer under fire

Audit shows problems at Illinois Power Agency

By Patrick Yeagle

The state agency responsible for buying Illinois’ electricity is under fire after an annual audit showed numerous problems with accounting and transparency.

A March 24 report by Illinois Auditor General William Holland says the Illinois Power Agency (IPA) needs to correct 35 “weaknesses” in financial transparency, rulemaking and more. The report admonishes IPA for storing money outside the state treasury, failing to create an annual budget and even lacking basic office supplies.

Among the more major issues identified in the audit is a lack of financial reporting and accounting records maintained by IPA.

“… [F]or the second year in a row, the agency did not provide accurate and complete financial information,” the audit states. “Specifically, the financial information provided did not contain all the necessary information regarding funds held outside of the state treasury.”

One of the most unusual problems identified by the audit was a lack of adequate staff. IPA director Mark Pruitt is one of only two employees in the entire agency, and the second employee, chief financial officer Kristene Callanta, was only hired in January 2011 – after the period covered in the audit. The lack of staffing coincides with the agency’s failure to create specialized bureaus to handle certain tasks, the audit shows.

“Failure to create these required bureaus is a violation of state statute,” the audit says. “In addition, because these bureaus were not created, the director had the sole responsibility for scoring all proposals and selecting winners for the procurement process, which could result in an abuse of power.”

dot dot dot as they say

For example, a 2007 complaint filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan says prices produced by auctions were “almost 40 percent higher than prices in bilateral electricity markets… and they were produced in a highly concentrated market in which there is evidence of price manipulation.”

To view the IPA audit and others, visit www.auditor.illinois.gov

Contact Patrick Yeagle at pyeagle@illinoistimes.com.

:}

I mean I know that in 2008 there was all the worry about then Governor Blago’s corrupt hiring practices but this is really an over reaction. More tomorrow.

:}

Paul Krugman And Energy Policy – California and what can be accomplished

Posted on by
Reply

It is so basic – save money on energy and there is more to spend on other things.

:}

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/02/paul_krugman_co.html

Friday, February 23, 2007

Paul Krugman: Colorless Green Ideas

Now that the scientific debate over global warming is all but over, Paul Krugman looks at what we can do limit greenhouse gas emissions:

Colorless Green Ideas, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: The factual debate about whether global warming is real is, or at least should be, over. The question now is what to do about it.

Aside from a few dead-enders on the political right, climate change skeptics seem to be making a seamless transition from denial to fatalism. In the past, they rejected the science. Now, with the scientific evidence pretty much irrefutable, they insist that it doesn’t matter because any serious attempt to curb greenhouse gas emissions is politically and economically impossible.

Behind this claim lies the assumption, … that any substantial cut in energy use would require a drastic change in the way we live. To be fair, some people in the conservation movement seem to share that assumption.

But the assumption is false. Let me tell you about … an advanced economy that has managed to combine rising living standards with a substantial decline in per capita energy consumption, and managed to keep total carbon dioxide emissions more or less flat for two decades, even as both its economy and its population grew rapidly. And it achieved all this without fundamentally changing a lifestyle centered on automobiles and single-family houses.

The name of the economy? California.

There’s nothing heroic about California’s energy policy… [T]he state has adopted … conservation measures that are … the kind of drab, colorless stuff that excites only real policy wonks. Yet the cumulative effect has been impressive…

The energy divergence between California and the rest of the United States dates from the 1970s. Both the nation and the state initially engaged in significant energy conservation after that decade’s energy crisis. But conservation in most of America soon stalled…

In California, by contrast, the state continued to push policies designed to encourage conservation, especially of electricity. And these policies worked.

People in California have always used a bit less energy … because of the mild climate. But the difference has grown much larger since the 1970s. Today, the average Californian uses about a third less total energy than the average American, uses less than 60 percent as much electricity, and … emit[s] only about 55 percent as much carbon dioxide.

How did the state do it? In some cases conservation was mandated directly, through energy efficiency standards for appliances and rules governing new construction. Also, regulated power companies were given new incentives to promote conservation…

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Walter Williams And Energy Policy – Just putting their words up so you can see what we are up against

Posted on by
Reply

I should say first that I detest this man and the “university” that he claims to teach at if he is still there. George Mason University is just a front group for corporate and christian evil. The real malfeasance is that they dress it up as “higher education” and “graduate learning programs”.

This is a rich black man who drives a $70,000 car and shills for oil, gas and coal.

Oh, and I have been neglecting to mention where I get my list of the 30 top conservative columnists from:

http://rightwingnews.com/2009/09/the-30-best-conservative-columnists-for-2009-version-3-0/?p=1207?comments=show

Here is Walter in all his ignorance the day before Christmas.
Walter E. Williams

Americans have been rope-a-doped into believing that global warming is going to destroy our planet. Scientists who have been skeptical about manmade global warming have been called traitors or handmaidens of big oil. The Washington Post asserted on May 28, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of manmade climate fears. Bill Blakemore on Aug. 30, 2006 said, “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such (scientific) debate on global warming.” U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming. U.N. special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate “over” and added “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the U.N.’s scientific “consensus.” In July 23, 2007, CNN’s Miles O’Brien said, “The scientific debate is over.” Earlier he said that scientific skeptics of manmade catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.”

The global warming scare has provided a field day for politicians and others who wish to control our lives. After all, only the imagination limits the kind of laws and restrictions that can be written in the name of saving the planet. Recently, more and more scientists are summoning up the courage to speak out and present evidence against the global warming rope-a-dope. Atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said, “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

This Is Probably A Huge Exaggeration – But

Posted on by
Reply

But sometimes the Peak Oil people get all wound up and I want to put their stuff up in a timely fashion. So without further adieu (god I have always wanted to say that ) here it is:

http://phoenixrisingfromthegulf.wordpress.com/

The Gulf of Mexico is Dying

A Special Report on the BP Gulf Oil Spill

It is with deep regret that we publish this report.  We do not take this responsibility lightly, as the consequences of the following observations are of such great import and have such far-reaching ramifications for the entire planet.  Truly, the fate of the oceans of the world hangs in the balance, as does the future of humankind.

The Gulf of Mexico (GOM) does not exist in isolation and is, in fact, connected to the Seven Seas.  Hence, we publish these findings in order that the world community will come together to further contemplate this dire and demanding predicament.  We also do so with the hope that an appropriate global response will be formulated, and acted upon, for the sake of future generations.  It is the most basic responsibility for every civilization to leave their world in a better condition than that which they inherited from their forbears.

After conducting the Gulf Oil Spill Remediation Conference for over seven months, we can now disseminate the following information with the authority and confidence of those who have thoroughly investigated a crime scene.  There are many research articles, investigative reports and penetrating exposes archived at the following website.  Particularly those posted from August through November provide a unique body of evidence, many with compelling photo-documentaries, which portray the true state of affairs at the Macondo Prospect in the GOM.

:}

dot dot dot as they say
:}

As the diagrams clearly indicate, the geology around the well bore has been blown.  This occurred because of drilling contiguous to a salt dome(1), as well as because of the gas explosions which did much damage to the integrity of the well casing, cementing, well bore, well head, and foundation around the well head.  Eighty-seven straight days of gushing hydrocarbon effluent under great pressure only served to further undermine the entire well system.  Finally, when it was capped, putting the system back under pressure forced the upsurging hydrocarbons to find weaknesses throughout the greater system, which revealed all sorts of compromised, fractured and unsettled geology through which the hydrocarbons could travel all the way to the seafloor and into the GOM.

:}

This is a really long post and a really long blog space so I can not really do it justice. Please go there and read it all. Is it truth. I don’t know but there is a lot of destruction in the Gulf with or with out some kind of continuing seepage. More tomorrow.

:}

Cap And Trade Rises From The Ashes – It made it into the Senate

Posted on by
Reply

It’s Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ16hEpB_Sk

Conventional post election wisdom has the Cap and Trade legislation being declared dead. But, it is sitting in a Senate that the Democrats control. Will they bust it lose during the end of the year session. Who knows, but I think the issue will not go away so sooner or later something will have to be done. I mean Russia caught on fire. How much more does it take than that.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/4/clean-coal-is-as-dead-as-cap-and-trade/

MILLOY: Clean coal is as dead as ‘cap-and-trade’

Mitch McConnell had better study up on the election results

By Steve Milloy-The Washington Times

While we shouldn’t expect our left-wing elitist president to understand Tuesday’s electoral rejection of his “progressive” prescriptions for America, we should expect Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, to get it.

But Mr. McConnell seems to have missed the message, at least when it comes to “cap-and-trade” – odd for a coal-state politician. The day after the election, Mr. McConnell said, “The president says he’s for nuclear power. Most of my members are for nuclear power. The president says he’s for clean coal technology. Most of my members are for clean coal technology. There are areas that we can make progress on for the country.”

Aside from the canard of President Obama sincerely supporting nuclear power and the fact that Republicans ought to avoid the loaded and already co-opted-by-the-left word “progress,” so-called “clean coal” is a form of Obama-think – a discredited cap-and-trade concept that was more trap than sincere policy.

Some in the coal industry and some coal-burning electric utilities had been talked into supporting cap-and-trade, provided that taxpayers and ratepayers forked over billions (if not trillions) of dollars for so-called “carbon capture and sequestration” (CCS) – that is, burying utility carbon-dioxide emissions deep underground and hoping they stay there safely.

But to the extent that any so-called environmentalists paid any lip service to clean coal and CCS, it was only to lure coal and utility suckers into cap-and-trade. Does anyone really believe, after all, that the greens would allow utilities to inject underground billions of tons of highly pressurized carbon dioxide all over the nation? They fought tooth-and-nail, after all, to prevent the storage of sealed casks of spent nuclear fuel one mile underground in the Nevada desert.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm-pFqdqcZY&feature=related

Which would they prefer, a tax on carbon? This guys lists all the reasons for cap and trade mechanisms to be set up by the Federal Government and heavily policed by the Federal Government. Nonetheless he likes carbon taxes because they supply more stability. But his belief that it won’t be passed on to the customer is asinine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSJdjb6K5i4&feature=fvw

:}

http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/cap-and-trade-legislation/810

Cap and Trade Legislation is Fatally Flawed

My First Ever Mea Culpa

By Nick Hodge
Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

We may never see cap and trade in this country.

Those are words I never thought I’d write.

In fact, I’ve been touting the benefits of a cap and trade market since 2007. But new ideas, unraveling facts, and recent events have changed my thinking.

So today, I’m publishing my first ever mea culpa.

Cap and Trade Legislation is Fatally Flawed

My First Ever Mea Culpa

By Nick Hodge
Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

We may never see cap and trade in this country.

Those are words I never thought I’d write.

In fact, I’ve been touting the benefits of a cap and trade market since 2007. But new ideas, unraveling facts, and recent events have changed my thinking.

So today, I’m publishing my first ever mea culpa.

Carbon Should Still be Priced

To be clear, I’m not saying that carbon shouldn’t have a price. By all means, it should.

What I’m saying is that cap and trade isn’t the way to implement it.

At the end of the day, carbon dioxide is a harmful waste product that needs to be handled. Companies don’t get free passes for treating and disposing of other waste streams their businesses generate. Why should carbon be any different?

Not charging companies for emitting carbon is giving them free reign over something they cannot and will not ever own: the atmosphere.

We don’t let companies freely dump waste into rivers or lakes… We don’t allow companies to dump waste in forests… So why, then, are we still letting companies dump a known pollutant into the atmosphere unchecked?

This is why everyone speaks of how cheap coal is. It’s not really that cheap, we just don’t include the price of carbon in its costs.

Carbon isn’t a business externality — meaning, companies that produce it can shift the cost to society — and it can no longer be treated as such.

The Trouble with Cap and Trade

:}

You can go to the article for the rest. I personally support a carbon tax. But I have always said that Cap and Trade is what we get because high finance wants it that way. More Monday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdAhR-c–20&feature=related

:}