“Let’s be clear. Nuclear power’s Secondary Financial Protection is not insurance. Insurance is a voluntary agreement among the parties in which all or a portion of a risk is transferred from one party to another in return for a payment, which is set by the participants, ideally in a competitive market. The SFP is a government mandated protection racket.” (Devanny, below)
“The only solution is a fixed compensation scheme with each plant being responsible for its own liability insurance. If a compensation scheme, based only on the dose profile each individual and business would have incurred assuming no evacuation, is combined with a radiation-harm model that recognizes our bodies’ ability to repair radiation damage within limits, the risk will be easily insurable.” (Devanny, below)
The notorious Price-Anderson Act, enacted in 1957 as part of a federal effort to get peaceful atoms into commercial use, has been extended seven times and is set to expire on its own terms next year (end of 2025).…
Editor Note: The House yesterday passed a concurrent resolution “expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.” Ten Democrats joined all but one Republican (Brian Fitzpatrick, PA) in the 222–196 victory. A free-market, winning policy on climate is to not support any legislation that increases either taxes or energy prices, directly or indirectly.
Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 25, 2024
Mr. Zinke (for himself, Mr. Scalise, Mr. Bost, Mr. Clyde, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Perry, Mr. Ogles, Mr. Jackson of Texas, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Lamborn, Mrs. Miller of West Virginia, Mr. Carey, Mr. Langworthy, and Mr. Pfluger) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy.…
“Apologies are in order from Bloomberg Green. In terms of social justice, why hurt the average person as consumer, ratepayer, and taxpayer?”
“Trump’s Green-Bashing and Europe’s Right Put Climate Goals at Risk,” write Laura Millan, Zahra Hirji, Olivia Rudgard, and Jonathan Gilbert (maybe it takes four writers to tip-toe around the climate vs. social justice issue).
The Bloomberg Green authors call it “the campaign against climate.” Realists would call it a long overdue populist campaign for energy justice and against alarmism and energy rationing. And expect a lot more such protest in the future as Net Zero fails–and an “energy transition” back to the real thing (dense, stock, affordable, plentiful, reliable energies) occurs.
Here is the Bloomberg Green Daily story:
Politicians are vowing to roll back green policies and downplaying climate change ahead of key elections on both sides of the Atlantic, casting doubt on whether countries can maintain momentum in the transition away from fossil fuels.…