10-01-2009, 04:01 PM
GE has WAY more to gain by staying with and improving upon the vast inventory of coal and gas technologies it has already developed than by pushing green policy. Why not just continue to make that which is already selling and develop green technology on the side as a contingency? What would be the point of spending cash lobbying to change energy policy? They're not getting an edge on the competition by changing policy. They'd be hurting their own coal and gas subsidiaries while opening up the playing field for green-focused companies that are currently not players in the energy industry. Doesn't make sense.
Again, why are people talking about CO2 and Cap and Trade? Who benefits from rising CO2 levels? Who is making money on this? Are those beneficiaries really that much more powerful and motivated than the companies of the existing paradigm? How are the 'CO2 is warming the planet' companies winning this argument if it is patently false? The burden of proof if on them and they have fewer resources to prove their point. This should have gone away a long time ago if there wasn't any truth to it.
If Cap and Trade is going to drive some businesses out of the country, and this is pretty clear, then it must be those countries that stand to gain the companies we lose that are driving the debate. So are China and India and the like influencing the CO2 debate? How is it that all the first world countries (with so much to lose by holding themselves to higher standards) even considering these policy changes?
I just fail to see how this political view turned scientific paradigm called "CO2" could withstand and overturn an entrenched energy industry, general public apathy, and political inertia.
So GE is pushing to change energy policy greenward so that it has to do deal with policies like Cap and Trade which effectively making the business environment more hostile for its gas and coal businesses? Why would they do this?
I'm still searching for the beneficiaries of a greenward change in policy due to rising CO2 and asking myself how and why they pulled it off.
Again, why are people talking about CO2 and Cap and Trade? Who benefits from rising CO2 levels? Who is making money on this? Are those beneficiaries really that much more powerful and motivated than the companies of the existing paradigm? How are the 'CO2 is warming the planet' companies winning this argument if it is patently false? The burden of proof if on them and they have fewer resources to prove their point. This should have gone away a long time ago if there wasn't any truth to it.
If Cap and Trade is going to drive some businesses out of the country, and this is pretty clear, then it must be those countries that stand to gain the companies we lose that are driving the debate. So are China and India and the like influencing the CO2 debate? How is it that all the first world countries (with so much to lose by holding themselves to higher standards) even considering these policy changes?
I just fail to see how this political view turned scientific paradigm called "CO2" could withstand and overturn an entrenched energy industry, general public apathy, and political inertia.
So GE is pushing to change energy policy greenward so that it has to do deal with policies like Cap and Trade which effectively making the business environment more hostile for its gas and coal businesses? Why would they do this?
I'm still searching for the beneficiaries of a greenward change in policy due to rising CO2 and asking myself how and why they pulled it off.
Caveatum & Blhurr D'Vizhun.
![[Image: glarebear_av.gif]](http://thepurge.net/turnip/glarebear_av.gif)
![[Image: sterb037.gif]](http://www.getsmileyface.com/sm/violent/sterb037.gif)