Its findings hinge on several dubious assumptions. The agency’s researchers assume that more than 100 new nuclear facilities will be in operation in 2030, in spite of the fact that no new facility has been built in the past 30 years. The analysis also assumes that the offset market operates honestly, effectively and efficiently — ignoring the wide-spread incidents of fraud and abuse in the existing EU market.

The dubious conjectures don’t end there. The frequently cited stamp stat also assumes that emissions allowances will hold down prices, that cap-and- trade will spur innovation, that carbon capture and storage will be cost-effective, and that there will be large efficiency gains from building codes and low-carbon energy systems. It’s true that all economic models rely, to some degree, on assumptions. However, the EPA analysis takes it to an extreme, relying on assumptions that are often exaggerated or simply inadequate.

Reminds us of our cartoon:

In fact, in yet another display of the power of “new media,” our investigation into these ads appears to have been what prompted Graham’s handlers to ditch the left-leaning organization that was initially responsible for the content of the ads in an effort to find a new “issues launderer” for this message, although the group they finally settled on ultimately traces its roots to organizations run by George Soros, America’s foremost liberal financier.

More on that in a moment …

As reported on FITS last week, the pro-Graham radio and television ads were originally scheduled to be paid for by a group known as the “Truman National Security Project.”

Once our investigation began to expose this organization as nothing but a liberal front group, however, Team Lindsey quickly switched gears.  In fact, they began scurrying frantically to switch the ad’s sponsors, even though a few radio ads bearing the name of the group had already started running.

How frantically?

Take a look at this email obtained from the public files at WIS TV 10 (Columbia – NBC), in which Jesse Demastrie – the advertising account executive in charge of placing the ads – writes that “we need to change the client name on these South Carolina buys. The client should be Republicans for Environmental Protection.”

The world’s carbon trading markets growing complexity threatens another “sub-prime” style financial crisis that could again destabilise the global economy, campaigners warn today.

In a new report, Friends of the Earth says that to date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions but have been plagued by inefficiency and corruption that render them unfit for purpose.

One interesting thing: Climate change and global warming does seem to be slipping down the list of Democratic talking points. Sen. Boxer said the bill “addresses a crucial issue of our time.”

What would that be? Turns out there’s several—but saving the planet from climate catastrophe isn’t one of them. The bill will “move us away from foreign oil imports that cost Americans one billion dollars a day, it will protect our children from pollution, create millions of clean energy jobs, and stimulate billions of dollars of private investment,” Sen. Boxer said.

We never begrudge someone earning a strong living off of their good work. But Gore’s product is little more helpful than the colon cleanser hacks on informercials — though the damage feels roughly the same.

The gist:

Ebell starts off by suggesting cap and trade is a problem in the “orders of magnitude” greater than some of the other pressing policy fights because of its vast economic impact.

Simmons says:

• One problem with cap and trade is that it prevents states from acting as their role as laboratories for successful policies, so it’s worth being concerned over the state- and region-based cap and trade systems (which are not working well)
• More than half the 1400 word page Waxman-Markey isn’t even about cap and trade — it’s about renewable mandates and a host of other problems
• Today we only get 2.8% of our energy from Waxman-Markey-approved renewable sources
• Highlights the massive cost figures ($800 per family per year, 2.5 million lost jobs, $9.4 trillion in lost GDP)
• Sen. Boxer’s bill differs slightly in that it starts out at 959 pages and no renewable electricity mandate because there’s a separate bill sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman
• “Many of the bad ideas” in Waxman-Markey “came from California” … (don’t we know it) … so it’s important to be “vigilant” about state policies
• Showing a great chart on the spike of greenhouse gas-limiting bills introduced in the states (linked to Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger efforts)
• Thankfully, cap and trade is failing at the national level so environmental activists are adding a lot of pressure to push them at the state level
• surprisingly, Oregon’s plan isn’t among the worst in the nation … (though they’ve got other problems going on)
• another trend is states like California trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles by 2016
• about 30 states have renewable portfolio mandates — meaning that there is a high probability that such a plan will be passed at the federal level
• those mandates are a factor in the 38% higher electricity rates citizens pay in those states than in states without those mandates

Chesser says:

• Today he’s offering a case study in “exposing your local alarmists”
• He’s found extremely slick alarmist presentations that are being used in schools to influence kids
• Found two college professors who claimed climate science is “simple” and misled the public with ridiculously simplistic narratives and asking newspaper editorial page editors to stop printing skeptical material
• Started looking at funding of those professors, since environmentalists always attack opponents as shills
• One was working on a three-year project funded by a government agency, but the project was heavily tilted toward attacking the market economy … the project brought in more than $200k for the university
• The other professor brought in more than $2.6 million from the government since 1998
• They also blog about climate change and politics and co-teach a class on global warming
• While they’re true believes, it’s important to note that their funding comes on the basis of these views

Wynn says:

• there’s not a single developed nation that uses the 2.4 tons of CO2 per person per year that is the goal for climate change legislation … the only. Only terribly poor nations have such an average
• Another way to look at it is that we could dial back the clock to 1875, when income was about $3,180 in CURRENT dollars
• why is the legislation so damaging? Because the economy needs energy use/consumption and national income
• “It is a tax that affects every aspect of the economy”

The state’s largest paper, cleverly titled The Oregonian, has looked into the issue and reports “State lowballed cost of green tax breaks”:

State officials deliberately underestimated the cost of Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s plan to lure green energy companies to Oregon with big taxpayer subsidies, resulting in a program that cost 40 times more than unsuspecting lawmakers were told, an investigation by The Oregonian shows.

Records also show that the program, a favorite of Kulongoski’s known as the Business Energy Tax Credit, has given millions of dollars to failed companies while voters are being asked to raise income taxes because the state budget doesn’t have enough to pay for schools and other programs.

The incentives are now under intense scrutiny at the Oregon Department of Energy, which is scrambling to curb their skyrocketing costs.

We’d say it’s shocking, but we lived there long enough to no longer be shocked by that kind of stuff. It remains galling, though. The Institute for Energy Research breaks out some helpful bullet points:

• According to documents obtained under Oregon’s public records law, agency officials estimated in a Nov. 16, 2006, spreadsheet that expanding the [green energy] tax credits would cost taxpayers an additional $13 million in 2007-09. But after a series of scratch-outs and scribbled notes, a new spreadsheet pared the cost to $1.8 million. And when energy officials handed their final estimate to the Legislature in February 2007, they pegged the added cost at just $1.2 million for the first two years and $4.1 million for 2009-11.
• The higher estimates were never shown to lawmakers. Current and former energy staffers acknowledged a clear attempt to minimize the cost of the subsidies.

IER’s Tom Pyle — a former Chilling Effect interviewee, thank you — issued this statement:

Green jobs and green energy are simply not feasible without massive government subsidies, mandates and sometimes – as it appears in the case of Oregon – outright deception and dishonest acts. What was uncovered this weekend in Oregon is only the tip of the iceberg. Many rent seeking, corporate-welfare searching ‘green energy’ businesses seem more concerned with securing taxpayer-funded government handouts than producing jobs, dividends, growth, and reliable energy.

Agreed.