Archive for the ‘Deregulation’ Category

Enron and the Environmental Movement

March 25, 2008
Editor
Notice in the article where it refers to “some scientists” not a consensus Enron got the cap removed from gas and Enron got the first incentives for wind farms. Because wind farms are intermittent and they are backed up with gas Enron stood to make a fortune, as do players today. The worst part is that your tax dollars are subsidizing the scam. It’s now 2008, when does the scam get shut down.

Mention Enron and the response is always the same.

SCAM

So what is different today? NOTHING. Same scam different day. Enron on steroids is the only way to describe what is taking place today. Enron didn’t care about the environment and neither does Gore.
They care about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
and they are quite prepared to surround your house with wind turbines to get it.
It appears Gore liked what he saw from Enron and decided to carry on where they left off. You have to give Gore credit. He’s the only one I know that has managed to get both an Oscar and a Nobel Prize for a scam. Good work Al.
Give Me Your Money – NOW
121707goreal.jpg

 

 

Enron and the Environmental Movement:
Global Warming Politics Makes for Strange Bedfellows

by Amy Ridenour January 2002


With a payoff worth tens of billions of dollars at stake, Enron Corporation laid out millions in campaign contributions in the 1990s apparently in part to persuade the Clinton Administration and the U.S. Senate to support the Kyoto global warming treaty.

Enron hoped to cash in on the Kyoto treaty by masterminding a worldwide trading network in which major industries could buy and sell credits to emit carbon dioxide – the inert gas that some scientists and most environmentalists believe contributes to global warming.

The Houston firm’s lobbying push appeared to be on the verge of success when Vice President Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol in November of 1998.

There was a fly in the ointment, however. Ratification of the treaty would have required the U.S. to cut back its CO2 emissions levels by seven percent from 1990 levels, while the treaty allowed major emerging nations such as China, India and Indonesia a free hand in developing industries that spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The Clinton Administration’s interest in obtaining an international agreement to fight global warming meshed with Enron’s dream of huge profits from new investments in natural gas utilities and pipelines. Ratification of the Kyoto treaty would have played into Enron’s greed by forcing the U.S. to switch from coal-fired power plants to ones fueled by cleaner-burning natural gas. The trading surge in emission credits thus would have funneled an ever-increasing flow of cash into its coffers.

As overseer of a global trading network, Enron almost certainly would have leap-frogged ahead of many older, established companies that actually produce far more energy than Enron, essentially an energy broker.

When the Senate took a hard look at the potential overall economic impact of the Kyoto proposal, it quickly voted 95-0 to urge the White House not to send it any treaty that would have an adverse impact on the nation’s economy.

Indeed, the Clinton Administration, although pressured heavily by Enron and such unlikely company allies as the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council, never sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification.

Two studies by impartial third parties show why: The Energy Information Administration, the official forecasting arm of the Energy Department, found that meeting the Kyoto greenhouse gas limits would increase gasoline prices by 52 percent and electricity prices by 86 percent, and decrease our national gross domestic product (GDP) by 4.2 percent.

A study by Dr. Stephen Brown, Senior Economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of Texas, found that under a best case scenario, reducing CO2 emissions seven percent below 1990 levels – as required under the Kyoto accord – would represent a loss of between three percent to 4.3 percent of U.S. GDP. That comes out to $921 to $1,320 per person and $3,684 to $5,280 for a family of four. Under a worst-case scenario, meeting the Kyoto mandate could cost the average family of four $6,400 a year.

When it became apparent that the Kyoto treaty had little chance of Senate ratification, Enron’s well-heeled lobbying corps began seeking ways to implement the treaty provisions most favorable to them through backdoor means.

As part of the strategy, CEO Kenneth Lay signed Enron onto the Business Environmental Leadership Council of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, a left-leaning think-tank headed by Eileen Claussen, a former Environmental Protection Agency and State Department official in the Clinton Administration.

The Pew Center has waged an expensive propaganda campaign over the past few years aimed at convincing journalists that global warming is a dire threat.

Other companies joining Pew’s Business Environmental Leadership Council also stood to gain vast sums if federal regulators imposed strict new limits on carbon dioxide emissions, including such powerhouses as Boeing, British Petroleum, International Paper, Lockheed-Martin, Maytag, 3M, Toyota, Weyerhaeuser and Whirlpool.

Lay, a close personal friend of leading Republicans and Democrats, also joined two far-left environmental groups – the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council – in calling for new curbs on emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.

Enron might well have been successful in its latest campaign to persuade the Bush Administration to announce far-reaching restrictions on CO2 if the company’s apparently devious financial machinations hadn’t plunged it into collapse.

Its intricate involvement in, and financing of, a national campaign to ratify the Kyoto global warming treaty and impose carbon caps on much of American industry raises important questions that Congressional hearings likely will explore in the weeks ahead. Among them:

* How much of the campaign was financed by money from Enron’s coffers? In spreading it around did the company violate federal election and lobbying laws?

* How duplicitous were the environmental groups that joined Enron in its crusade for Kyoto? Did these organizations financially benefit from their strange bedfellow alliance with giant energy company?

* Did federal and state lawmakers and federal officials in the Bush and Clinton administrations intentionally violate campaign or fraud laws by accepting gifts, gratuities or future high-level positions in return for supporting the company?

Interesting questions all, and the answers likely will determine just how far the unfolding net of the Enron scandal travels and whom it ensnares. The public deserves complete and comprehensive answers to those questions, no matter whose illusions are shattered.

# # #


Amy Ridenour is President of The National Center for Public Policy Research, a Washington, D.C. think tank. Comments may be sent to aridenour@nationalcenter.org.

Source nationalcenter.org

Protest Earth Day

FLICK ON

Tories oppose carbon tax

January 7, 2008

Editor:
Why the big push from the advisory committee? The scam that is global warming is starting to fall apart. Talk of global cooling is starting to appear. Carbon tax has nothing to do with global warming. Never did. It’s about control and cash.
That’s what it should be called, “Control and Cash” not “Cap and Trade”.

I’m not a big fan of Stephen Harper or his govt, I am however, a big fan of Canada and it’s people. Carbon trading will have adverse affects on the economy and the jobs people depend on and therefore it should not be implemented. I am therefore asking that you encourage Mr. Harper to base his policy on up to date science.

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

Tories oppose carbon tax

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has flatly opposed the idea of a carbon tax in the past, as has Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.

On Monday, the federal Liberals seemed to be more receptive to the idea.

At a press conference in Ottawa, long-time Liberal and environmental activist John Godfrey said his party currently favours a carbon trading system, but will keep an open mind about carbon taxes and is waiting to see what research emerges on the topic.

The Conservatives, however, stuck to their position.

Environment Minister John Baird said Monday that he welcomes the report’s call for fixing a price on carbon, but would not consider a carbon tax. He said his government is instead working to regulate industry emissions by pushing for major polluters to significantly reduce their emissions by 2010 and encouraging an eventual carbon trading system in North America.

“What we’re not going to do is be like Stéphane Dion and the Liberals who constantly change their position and their policy,” Baird told reporters outside the House of Commons, referring to the Liberal’s apparent softening stance on a carbon tax.

“I understand the Liberals are now entertaining dumping their current policy — policy No. 8 by my count — and adopting a completely new policy. Every time a report comes out, you can’t change your mind.”

Murray said he is optimistic that Parliament will support carbon prices and measures like carbon taxes and carbon trading.

“It’s time to move the discussion forward because there isn’t a realistic case that we have seen yet where we can achieve reductions without a price [on carbon],” Murray said.

“You’ll now quietly hear people talking very seriously about cap and trade systems,” he added. “Our job [as an advisory panel] is to push government, not just the governing party, but Parliament and Canadians.”

‘Significant’ impact on Ontario, Alberta

Murray noted that the costs of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system could particularly be “significant” on Alberta’s oil producers and Ontario’s manufacturing sector.

But he stressed that in the development of any new policy, there would be investments in green technologies that would ultimately benefit both provinces significantly.

He said any policy would have to be created to ensure all regions are treated fairly, and that Canada’s industry as a whole doesn’t suddenly find itself on an “unlevel playing field” with the rest of the world.

Murray said the development of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system must include industry officials, environmentalists and representatives from all regions of the country.

Representatives from all sectors were already involved in the creation of the panel’s report, he said, noting that 65 groups were consulted and extensive economic modelling was done.

GDP wouldn’t be seriously affected

David McLaughlin, CEO of the advisory panel, said the report has concluded that Canada can feasibly reach its 2050 target of a 65 per cent emissions reduction, and that reaching this target will not be detrimental to the Canadian economy as a whole.

Canada has enough green technology in place to meet the goals, although the development of more technology would be encouraged, according to the panel’s findings.

“Our findings suggest in the long run the overall effect on Canada’s gross domestic product will not be significant, amounting to the equivalent of approximately one to two years of lost growth of GDP between now and 2050,” McLaughlin said at the press conference with Murray.

While the Liberals applauded parts of the report, they accused the Conservatives of putting constraints on the advisory panel, giving it a mandate to work with the Conservative government’s environmental targets, instead of the targets proposed under the international Kyoto Protocol.

“The report reminded us once again that this Conservative government has unilaterally abandoned Canada’s international legal obligations,” Godfrey said.

The Kyoto Protocol, which Canada signed under a Liberal government in 1998, requires that the country reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent from 1990 levels by 2012.

The Conservative government created new environmental goals in April 2007 that see Canada meeting its Kyoto commitments years behind schedule. Under the new plan, Canada’s overall emissions will be cut by up to 65 per cent by 2050 and 20 per cent cut by 2020, all based on 2006 levels.

McLaughlin said the panel used the new targets because they are feasible and focused on the long-term, giving Canada enough time to make necessary changes.

Kyoto’s targets are too focused on the short-term, McLaughlin said.

CBC

Energy plan calls for wind, nuclear

August 30, 2007

From the Editor:

Dalton and his band of fools are so ludicrous that after they get the boot on Oct. the 10th they might want to shop their time in power to the CBC as a comedy. It might be funny as a sitcom but it’s far from funny as reality.

Ever since deregulation our electrical grid has been a disaster.

Deregulation did not work to the benefit of the citizens of Ont. and needs to be rolled back.

So who you gonna vote for.

Dalton is a disaster.

John Tory wants to fill up the great lakes with windmills . Expensive and unworkable.

Howard Hampton wants to run the grid with wind and solar. Expensive and unworkable.

Why is Dofasco, Canada’s biggest and most profitable steelmaker going to coal? Because gas is way too expensive. What do these parties plan to use to back up the wind and solar? Gas. Watch your hydro bill soar like an eagle.

The people who should be looking after our electrical needs know and will tell you that the best option at this time is to put the scrubbers on the coal plants and build another nuke.

If you allow reality to enter your mind you will come to the same conclusion.

options-for-coal-fired-power-plants-in-Ontario

 

 

Coal-fired plants to be phased out by the end of 2014, but some will be kept operational for “insurance purposes” in case of an unexpected shortfall in power supply or unusually high demand. Read the entire new plan at the National Post

From the Editor:

Which is it Dalton or do you know. You told the people of Ont. that you would close the coal plants in 2007 then you said for sure in 2014. Now you say you will phase them out by the end of 2014 but at the same time you will keep them operational. Why? Just in case you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Goodbye Dalton. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out the door.

Find your MPP here 

 

Read the story from the Sarnia Observer below

Liberals Reveal Easy Hypocrisy

The desperation shown by Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal government heading into the Oct. 10th provincial election reached new heights last week when it announced $6 million to help a Hamilton steel company replace natural gas with coal in its operations.

The Liberals, of course, are the same party that issued a legally binding regulation just days earlier to close Ontario’s four remaining coal-fired power plants by 2014, a move that spells the end of the Lambton Generating Station and 400 well-paid local jobs.

To cut operating costs, Dofasco is building a $60-million pulverized coal injection system to run two blast furnaces. By switching to coal from natural gas the Hamilton-based company expects to save about $28 million a year.

Dofasco is Canada’s biggest and most profitable steelmaker. Yet McGuinty still cuts the company a cheque for $6 million of taxpayer’s money, part of a pre-election spending blitz that has reached dizzying proportions.

Read the full story THE SARNIA OBSERVER (more…)