A Buckeye responds to the lunacy in RED below. It is disappointing to see so many Ohio companies support this rhetoric. The list demands your attention. Will you continue to support them with your $? Or educate them about the truth?….
We, the undersigned companies and investors, have a significant presence in Ohio and strongly support the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Carbon Pollution Standards for existing power plants. These standards, also called the Clean Power Plan, are critical for moving our country toward a clean energy economy.
In other words, a clean energy economy boosts companies that would otherwise fail in a competitive economy. We would do well here to remember that coercing investment and expansion in inefficient economic activities comes at the expense of not investing in economic winners, among other impacts.
Our support is firmly grounded in economic reality. Clean energy solutions are cost effective ways to drive investment…
But if clean energy solutions are cost effective, then why is government force critical? The answer is that without other people’s tax and rate dollars funneled to clean energy solutions investors, such investments are in fact not cost effective.
…and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Greenhouse gases are vital to all life on Earth and always have been. These gas concentrations are self-regulating under a wide variety of atmospheric events and trends. The arrogance of humans who believe we are capable of controlling and should reduce greenhouse gas concentrations is akin to believing an Eskimo woman’s linen drying line controls the northern lights or that native
American rain dances induce rainfall.
Increasingly, businesses rely on renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions to cut costs and improve corporate performance.
If renewable energy solutions cut costs, then why is it a requirement that governments must force other taxpayers and utility rate payers to participate in defraying the cost of such investments while the return on those investments accrues only to the voluntary private investors?
Businesses have always been free to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency with their own funds, and will do so if they truly believe it improves their corporate performance. This letter, from a group including already flourishing, large companies, demands perpetual handouts from the rest of us in order to ensure their profits, while using the feeble excuse of environmental benefit for all.
In 2014, a study by Ceres, Calvert Investments and the World Wildlife Fund revealed that 60 percent of Fortune 100 companies have set their own clean energy targets and have saved more than $1 Billion a year in the process.1.
If these companies “set targets” without intending to seek government forced handouts from hard working American taxpayers and ratepayers, then such targets are further evidence that edicts from government such as the clean power plan are unnecessary. But if these companies’ targets were set to take advantage of taxpayers and rate payers in order to make their targets’ fulfillment profitable, that is reason for American tax and rate payers to insist government cease and desist such unfair wealth transfers, and to boycott the private companies who promote such selfish activities at the expense of others. And if the savings to the Fortune 100 companies totaled more than $1 Billion, what was the value of the subsidies and mandates paid by tax and rate payers in support of those investments?
Clear and consistent policies…
Translation: “Government continuing to collect money in the form of rates and taxes and giving that money to powerful and profitable corporate entities…”
…can send market signals that help businesses and investors plan for the future.
Translation: “…contaminates and distorts markets, helping greedy businesses such as those signing this letter to collect even more revenue in the future that they did not earn without the fear that government will ever realize its mistakes and correct them.”
We are seeking long-term policies that provide businesses the certainty needed to transition to a clean energy economy.
Translation: “We want permanent, ongoing access to money we did not earn.”
Electric power plants are the single largest source of carbon pollution in the United States and the Clean Power Plan will be pivotal in reducing their emissions….
Carbon is not pollution. Furthermore, the statement is conspicuous in its placement here. The letter is intended to force states to force their rate and taxpayers to pay for otherwise uneconomic investments in green energy so that the companies authoring this letter can profit by them. The letter is not an affirmation of belief in the purported perils of purported “global warming”. It is about wealth transfer from anyone else, to them. The paragraph did not go on to say that financially harming electric power plants will not harm ratepayers. And for good reason: nobody would accept that assertion as true.
We are already experiencing increased frequency and intensity of storms, warmer temperatures, extreme precipitation, and changes in weather patterns that will continue to put trillions of dollars of institutional investors’ assets at risk and require companies to be innovative at adapting to these changes….
Weather patterns have never been consistent and never will be. What the authors are really asking for is an imaginary and free “insurance policy” against weather anomalies which forces real and ongoing costs on American taxpayers and ratepayers with no proof and little hope of measurable gain to society or the environment but very certain gain to the already profitable and powerful authors.
We are encouraged that the Plan allows states to use a number of flexible strategies to comply with the standards. States can build on successful clean energy policies already in place…
The EPA Clean Power Plan (CPP) used existing state mandates for renewable energy as a starting point from which to impose additional economic harms to states. This is a strong incentive for states to repeal their mandates prior to EPA finalizing CPP rules, and to claim that had they known
EPA would use existing standards as a starting point for imposing economic harm then they would have never passed the mandate laws to begin with, opting for a lower base line in eventual federal regulatory controls.
Evidence shows that emissions reductions can be achieved without long-term economic harm or damage to the reliability of our electricity system. 2 3
If that is true, then the free market will naturally lead utilities, businesses and individuals to invest in these non-damaging technologies without government force. What the statement intends to convey is that somehow wasting functional power plant infrastructure and replacing it with new power plants, or investing billions in upgrades to power plants is somehow free or that investors in conventional power plants should be forced to absorb those expenses without passing them on to ratepayers. This is a passive aggressive attack on the technologies on which our civilization and global leadership were built, and a simultaneous attack on the very concept of free enterprise.