Monday, October 19, 2009

Point/Counterpoint [Brown vs Hulme] - Iain Murray - The Corner on National Review Online
[Mike Hulme] The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. . . . To state that climate change will be "catastrophic" hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science.
What makes this all the more interesting is that Professor Hulme wrote this back in 2006.
For Exelon, Carbon Reductions Solve Problem, Make Money - WSJ.com
WSJ: You're outspoken about the need for carbon-emission reductions. You dropped out of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because it opposed legislation. But you own 17 nuclear reactors that would benefit.

Mr. Rowe: We don't flinch from the charge that, yes, some of our motivation and enthusiasm comes from the fact that we should make money on it if it happens.
Does Nuclear Fit The Bill? - Inhofe Response
Here is Senator Inhofe's response:

"Tying nuclear provisions to a profoundly bad idea still leaves a profoundly bad idea."
Inhofe: Climate Bill Is a Costly Non-Solution - Roll Call
No matter how many times Congress debates it, and no matter how environmentalists couch it, cap-and-trade will do virtually nothing to stop global warming, and cap-and-trade, as Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said, “is a tax, and a great big one.” These are the fundamentals in the cap-and-trade debate, and Republicans must refocus on them.
...
This is the debate now before the Senate. The Democrats will continue to obscure their intention to make energy more expensive by talking of clean energy and green jobs. In turn, they will provide some token, and assuredly unsatisfactory, compromise on offshore drilling and nuclear power, all in the vain hope of getting the 60 votes that they failed to get in 2003, 2005 and 2008. They failed then and they will fail again because, whether gilded with shiny green rhetoric or hidden behind empty compromises, cap-and-trade is still a great big tax that will destroy jobs, make energy more expensive and detract from America’s national security.

No comments: