Henry Paulson

One provision in the bill provides preferential tax treatment to publicly-traded institutions that engage in the trading of carbon offsets.  So no matter if your company is green or not, you can receive tax incentives from participating in the carbon trading market if your organization is publicly traded.  But how did it stay in the bill?

Henry Paulson didn’t ask for the carbon credit incentive in the bill, but after reviewing his stance on global warming during his tenure at Goldman Sachs, it’s obvious that he wouldn’t have opposed the addition.  Paulson believed that participation in the carbon market would spur the development of technologies that would lead to a less carbon-based economy.  The Washington Post reported in 2006 that Goldman Sachs believed in the scientific consensus of global warming.  Shocker. 

[H/T to co2sceptics.com]  In his debate with Gov. Sarah Palin, Sen. Joseph Biden stated categorically that he was certain that human activity was causing global warming. Sen. Biden seems not to be aware that there has been no global warming since before 2002 and that there has never been a time in climate history when carbon dioxide was a significant cause of climate change.

Biden's comments about global warming during his debate with Sarah Palin indicate he holds a very dangerous view about Earth's climate, climate change, and global warming.

Biden claims he is absolutely convinced that global warming is real and that it is caused by human activity.

In February, the geniuses at Mensa will host keynote speaker James Hansen, among others, to frighten them with scary stories. How can bright people believe, like the UN Secretary General, that computer model scenarios of the future are more frightening than Hollywood movies? Because they’re . . . real?

Well, apparently because they also accept observed, um, truths like “It is now firmly established that Earth’s global surface temperature is increasing and that human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary cause of that global warming.”

Ahem.

Today’s Greenwire (subscription required) reports that Congress is expected to adjourn without passing an extension of some $15 billion in tax credits for wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources. The credits are set to expire on December 31 unless Congress, well, renews them. Congress might do this in a lame-duck session after the November elections — or it might not.

Anyway, what’s interesting is what proponents are saying about the competitiveness of renewable energy.

Nobuo Tanaka, executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), says that “setting a carbon price is not enough” to boost global electricity production from renewables (including hydropower) to nearly 50 percent by 2050. That’s curious. Why wouldn’t beating the hell out of fossil-fueled electricity suffice to secure a 50-percent market share for renewables? The Executive Summary of IEA’s new report, Deploying Renewables, provides no explanation, and the full report, alas, costs €80, or roughly $114, to download.

Environmental-union-politico alliances use their clout to promote new energy, economic vision. Will it create jobs, without impacting existing jobs, living standards and economic opportunities? 

The quest to be “green” has spawned countless proposals, programs, laws and advertising campaigns. In Washington, DC a “Green Jobs Advisory Council” is promoting policies for green buildings, energy efficiency, renewable energy, city infrastructure, and lower carbon emissions.

Better sequencing of traffic lights speeds commuters to their workplaces, saves gasoline, cuts pollution, and reduces accidents. Better insulation reduces energy expenditures, and pays back investments in a few years. Concentrated juice, detergent and other products reduce packaging, shipping and storage costs.

Redesigned systems and energy-efficient computers and servers mean big savings in power-hungry data centers that facilitate banking, You Tube, Internet searches and modern business operations.