PG&G will make money even if sales fall, since revenues have been "decoupled" from sales. They get to charge customers extra if they don't make their sales target.

They also make money from conservation related activities.

I agree with your observation about Exelon's nuclear facilities. They will be in a unique position, because I doubt that new nuclear units will be coming on line. They are just too financially risky and capital intensive for investors, without some kind of government backstop. The guarantees that could have come from traditional regulation have for the most part been dismantled in the name of deregulation and privatization.

ah, the joke of the day, so early:

It's hardly unreasonable to suspect the company's position on climate change legislation is motivated, at least in part, by business considerations.

Interesting that "Conservation" and "Conservative" have such similar roots, and such disparite believers. . .

While I agree that Exelon has an economic interest in the results, I am happy that they have aligned their interests with our interests, unlike the Chamber which appears to think that if they just deny it long enough, reality will go away.

Exelon would do itself a favor in terms of credibility if it developed a strategy to overcome nuclear energy, too.

But anyway: the less money is behind the CoC, the better it is.

"The carbon-based free lunch is over"

That really does get right at it.

The biggest "ugly-hole" in conservative philosophy is the assertion that they take responsibility for all their actions, and that no one should get a free ride.

That claim is pure bullfeathers.

By dumping corporate wastes in rivers and the atmosphere, CEOs have avoided responsibility and taken a free ride on the earth since the advent of the industrial age. To claim that they are the party of "personal responsibility" is like going to hookers on Saturday and extolling family values on Sunday. Only worse. The planet as a whole is getting buggered in the backroom...

According to some turkey that the WaPo decided to give op-ed space to yesterday, the economic costs of global warming will amount to only $1.1 trillion over the remainder of the century.

Yeah, Fred Hiatt & Co. actually printed a guest op-ed saying exactly that. Doesn't give one much confidence in their judgment, does it?

But to the extent that there are people out there who actually believe crap like this, it's not surprising that they're against doing anything about global warming.

I am tired of the short-sightedness of those who would deny global warming. It's all about short term benefit, they'll have theirs until they die, which will be long before any of this becomes really bad (although the effects will surely be obvious).

These editorials and town criers warning of the 'economic costs' of doing what needs to be done about global warming don't seem to consider the 'species cost' of we don't do something.

To borrow a phrase (and manipulate it a bit) from Republican John Cornyn, "the economic costs required to fight global warming don't matter if you're dead."

The message to the business community remains the same, it's just getting louder: you can either get out in front of this thing, innovate, and create new business opportunities, OR you can become a dinosaur. Remind me again, what became of the dinosaurs?

The USCofC is also behind a TV ad running in Iowa that repeats all the old lies about healtcare reform: you won't be able to choose your own doctor, healthcare will be rationed, end-of-life care will turn into pull-the-plug. Always a conservative group, but seems to have been taken over by some very strange people. Wonder how local chapters feel about this? They're not very liberal either, but have to live in the community.

The CoC is losing support for its unsupportable policy. The question then becomes when will the self-venerated business community finally face its denial and work to develop economically viable ways to better protect our children's children's world! -Kevo

Out of curiosity, does anybody know if the COC had anything to say about tobacco back in the day, when health related science linked to smoking was busily being denied?

The CofC must be working around the clock these days. Over the last six months I've read about their healthcare smears, their campaign against family leave and paid vacation days, their global warming diatribes ... on and on.

Does this mean they've temporarily shelved their campaigns to bring back child labor, indentured servitude and debtor prisons?

Exelon's former president Ayres must be pleased, wherever he is. I'm sure his son is.

Clearly, the CoC has the best interests of the swimwear + sunblock industries at heart.

-Z

Seriously? They actually said they wanted a Scopes trial?

I mean, even today's young-Earth creationists will tell you that that was a black eye for anti-evolutionists. It was a show trial that made science look good and everyone else look like hayseed rubes. Nobody, on either side of any issue, wants a "Scopes trial" of anything!

This is like Dmitri Medvedev saying, "Sure, Russia's economy stinks, but I'm confident that if we build some Potemkin villages the housing sector will improve." YOU CAN'T SAY IT OUT LOUD OR IT DOESN'T WORK!