Archive for the ‘compact fluorescent lights’ Category

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…)

“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.

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…)