Archive for the ‘climate action partnership’ Category

Americans Wake Up to Obama’s Carbon Emission Scam

March 7, 2009

We reported previously that the U.S. Climate Action Partnership’s (USCAP’s) members include some of the country’s worst-managed corporations, as demonstrated by their need for government bailouts. These include former USCAP members AIG and Lehman Brothers, as well as government-dependent entities like General Motors and Chrysler. Our position is that companies that need government mandates to force people to buy their products or services contribute nothing to society, and they should not be in business. If General Electric, for example, cannot engineer cost-effective wind turbines and solar panels, and must instead get the government to require businesses and utilities to buy its products, it is a liability to the country and should not be in business. This message comes across clearly in Kimberley Strassel’s “If the Cap Fits,” from the Wall Street Journal.

    GE makes all the solar equipment and wind turbines (at $2 million a pop) that utilities would have to buy under a climate regime. GE’s revenue from environmental products long ago passed the $10 billion mark, and it doesn’t take much “ecomagination” to see why Mr. Immelt is leading the pack of climate profiteers.

Americans are fortunately waking up to Barack Obama’s plans to raise prices for consumers and knife the unions and workers who helped elect him by imposing carbon taxes that would enrich special interests (USCAP members) while driving energy-intensive businesses offshore. (more…)

U.S. Climate Action Partnership: Wall Street’s Oscar the Cat

October 27, 2008

Kimberley Strassel’s If the Cap Fits: Why our CEOs are warming to Kyoto shows that the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP or CAP for short) includes many companies that seek corporate welfare in the form of government-mandated purchases of their services or products. Many of USCAP’s members do not, in fact, even claim to produce a product or service, and are dependent on donations or grants. The recent performance of USCAP’s portfolio also suggests that the Climate Action Partnership is Wall Street’s Oscar the Cat: a harbinger of bankruptcy, desperate mergers, and generally poor business performance.

Let’s begin, however, with what Kimberley Strassel has to say.

    There was a time when the financial press understood that companies exist to make money. And it happens that the cap-and-trade climate program these 10 jolly green giants are now calling for is a regulatory device designed to financially reward companies that reduce CO2 emissions, and punish those that don’t.

    Four of the affiliates–Duke, PG&E, FPL and PNM Resources–are utilities that have made big bets on wind, hydroelectric and nuclear power. So a Kyoto program would reward them for simply enacting their business plan, and simultaneously sock it to their competitors. Duke also owns Cinergy, which relies heavily on dirty, CO2-emitting coal plants. But Cinergy will soon have to replace those plants with cleaner equipment. Under a Kyoto, it’ll get paid for its trouble.

    DuPont has been plunging into biofuels, the use of which would soar under a cap. Somebody has to cobble together all these complex trading deals, so say hello to Lehman Brothers.

    …Finally, there’s General Electric, whose CEO Jeffrey Immelt these days spends as much time in Washington as Connecticut. GE makes all the solar equipment and wind turbines (at $2 million a pop) that utilities would have to buy under a climate regime. GE’s revenue from environmental products long ago passed the $10 billion mark, and it doesn’t take much “ecomagination” to see why Mr. Immelt is leading the pack of climate profiteers.

(more…)

The Financial Crisis in One Sentence

September 30, 2008

The smart college boy/college girl MBAs* who run investment banks and other businesses have less practical ability than a man who did not even finish high school. Henry Ford told us in 1922 exactly why a good 20-30 percent of our investments vaporized during the past several months, and he summarized the cause in one sentence:

    The primary functions are agriculture, manufacture, and transportation.

There are exactly three ways to create wealth: grow it, mine it, or make it. While transportation does not add actual value, one usually has to move whatever one grows, mines, or manufactures. (more…)

Why General Electric is Heading South: Climate Action Partnership says it all

September 25, 2008

“GE slashes earnings view for 2008, but shares gain” by Marketwatch shows that General Electric is off about 38% from its high of about 42 only a year ago. Furthermore, “GE currently makes about 45% of its earnings from the financial unit, called GE Capital.”

From where we sit, General Electric’s problems are the direct result of a management belief, as exemplified by the company’s membership in the Climate Action Partnership, that the company does not have to create genuine value to earn a profit. As described by Kimberly Strassel’s “If the Cap Fits: Why our CEOs are warming to Kyoto,”

    Finally, there’s General Electric, whose CEO Jeffrey Immelt these days spends as much time in Washington as Connecticut. GE makes all the solar equipment and wind turbines (at $2 million a pop) that utilities would have to buy under a climate regime. GE’s revenue from environmental products long ago passed the $10 billion mark, and it doesn’t take much “ecomagination” to see why Mr. Immelt is leading the pack of climate profiteers.

In other words, instead of looking for ways to get the cost of solar panels and wind turbines down to where utilities and even homeowners will prefer them over traditional electricity sources (also known as “making money the old fashioned way, by earning it”), GE apparently wants the government to pass laws to compel utilities to buy his company’s products. This attitude, as well as a shift in resources from GE’s traditional manufacturing strategy to financial services, probably explains a good part of the company’s troubles.

On another note, another Climate Action Partnership member wanted the government to impose carbon emission caps, and a cap and trade regime, so it could make money by taking commissions on carbon credit trades. Its name was Lehman Brothers.

No Tears for Lehman Brothers

September 14, 2008

We literally feel our readers’ pain for today’s 504 point drop in the DJIA because of Lehman Brothers’ impending collapse on the stock market, because it impacts our own investments. However, we will shed no tears for Lehman Brothers itself, and we are not particularly surprised that it is going south. Furthermore, even if Lehman Brothers disappears tomorrow, it will in no way affect the United States’ remaining ability to create genuine wealth.

Henry Ford told us long ago that there are exactly three ways to create wealth: mine it, grow it, or make it, but Lehman Brothers apparently had the idea that it could create wealth (or at least enrich itself) by trading in carbon credits–an activity about as meritorious as speculation in baseball cards, coins, comic books, or tulip bulbs (ask the Dutch about the latter). The bubble eventually bursts (as it did with the dot-com stocks), and the chickens come home to roost. Lehman Brothers is a member of the Climate Action Partnership (CAP), whose agenda is to promote legislation to cap carbon dioxide emissions and then make money by trading in “carbon credits.” (more…)

“Carbon Credit Bookmakers” and “Corporate Welfare Seekers”

December 12, 2007

Physicians for Civil Defense’s “Money and Power” (November 2007) has an outstanding perspective on cap-and-trade proposals for carbon emissions, and other greenhouse gas regulations.

Under a cap and trade scheme, success will depend on skill in predicting or manipulating government policy. Bookmakers such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs would broker the carbon credit trading they support, making money from the forced purchases and sales, whatever the market did. Placing big bets are the 10 corporate welfare seekers that formed the Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). These include Duke Energy, PG&E, FPL, PNM Resources, Alcoa, BP, Caterpillar, Dupont, General Electric, PepsiCo, and others (see www.us-cap.org), hoping for $1.3 trillion in free money.

We encourage anyone who owns stock in any of these companies to introduce a stockholder resolution, in accordance with SEC requirements, that denounces carbon emission trading and emission caps as a scam from which the company should disassociate itself (while encouraging energy efficiencies that reduce costs for consumers while increasing company profits).

Royal Philips Electric, which is seeking legislation to force people to buy its compact fluorescent lights (we buy CFLs, but not from Philips) is yet another problem, and it was a sponsor of the Live Earth Concert.

Al Gore’s Message to Live Earth Suckers Audience

July 8, 2007

He doesn’t even sound sincere.

Please tell us what you think. Which of these does Al Gore remind you most?

(1) A medieval indulgence seller (like Geoffrey Chaucer’s Pardoner)
(2) A 19th century snake oil salesman
(3) P.T. Barnum with his “To the Egress” sign
(4) A Nigerian who needs your help to get $5 million worth of carbon emission credits out of the country, which he will happily divide with you after you cover all the expenses involved
(5) A carnival barker selling tickets to the sideshow
(6) One of the exhibits in the sideshow

Remember, Al Gore buys carbon emission credits from his own company (like an indulgence seller pardoning his own sins) so he can tell you how he is saving the planet, while his house uses more energy in a month than most people’s homes do in a year.

Live Earth = Front for Royal Philips Electronics climate profiteering

July 2, 2007

Live Earth is backed by Royal Philips Electronics, which wants legislation to ban incandescent light bulbs. This is simply corporate profiteering at its worst.

While Philips says the purpose of this legislation is to “increase energy efficiency,” its real purpose is to force people to buy Royal Philips Electronics products that they would not buy unless laws forced them to do so. If this legislation ever passes, we will stock up on a lifetime supply of full-spectrum incandescent bulbs. If the bulbs were really eye-friendly and cost-efficient, the marketplace would drive their purchase. No legislation was needed to make people trade in their horses and carts for automobiles, or slide rules for electronic calculators and coimputers. The fact that Philips is pushing for self-serving legislation to force people to buy its products (along with our own experience with Philips’ products) tells us everything we need to know. (more…)