I got sent another one of these “news articles” that attempt to discredit alternative energy:

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?feed=PR&date=20081016&id=9284042

>An analysis by the American Council for Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers shows that if the U.S. had adopted the federal Lieberman/Warner bill (S.2191 with its target of reducing GHGs by 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and by 70 percent by 2050), California would have lost income and jobs

Both of these are lobbyist groups that takes money from Exxon. ACCF has collected over a million dollars from Exxon.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=77

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Association_of_Manufacturers

> “The facts remain as relevant today as they did two years ago, AB 32 will result in a lot of economic pain for Californians,” Dr. Thorning said. “The cap and trade system will cause ‘leakage’ of industry to states and countries with no mandatory emission caps resulting in job losses and higher energy prices. This is a high price tag to pay for no net reduction in greenhouse gases.”

How can “leakage” create no net reduction in greenhouse gasses unless 100% of it leaks? Of course, Thorning was against Kyoto, and now he’s using the fact that we’re not in Kyoto to make the argument that its stupid for California to lose out to the rest of America.

>”Energy use and economic growth go hand in hand, so helping the developing world improve access to cleaner, more abundant energy should be our focus. Reducing emissions in the developed countries should not take priority over maintaining the strong economic growth necessary to keeping California one of the key engines for global economic growth,” concluded Thorning.

How are we supposed to be helping the developing world improve access to clean energy if we can’t do it ourselves?

Nothing in that email even attempts to address the loss of GDP due to global warming or what money could be made from creating a new market. All it says is underfunded clean energy is not as profitable as over-funded dirty energy. Maybe instead of funding these “nonprofit, nonpartisan organizations” that say alternative energy is bunk along side all those commercials to convince people that they are investing a lot in alternative energy, they should just be using all that money to just invest in alternative energy.