Someone Explain the Logic, Please?
Read this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK3Q3AFLBNEGKMH

And then see if you can follow this line of reasoning: Northeastern energy companies have either a) paid for a license to pollute -- up to a certain point , or, b) paid $40 million for something which does not exist, but which the government mandates that they buy (i.e. a carbon credit).

On the one hand, that $40 milion probably bought them the means by which to avoid actually paying for technology and such which would actually reduce CO2 emissions (which, despite what the Greenie Meanies tell you is *not* the reason behind Global Warming/Cooling), in which case, that $40 probably saved them $80 million in clean-up costs.

On the other hand, this sounds more like government as neighborhood mugger, sticking a gun in the energy companies' faces, and then terrorizing them, adding insult to injury. I wonder what will happen if these companies exceed their cap-levels; Do they get closed down? If they close down and deprive New York or Boston of electricity, resulting in rolling blackouts and lost productivity, does the government let them exceed the caps they've just extorted money for? I mean, if it came down to it, which does a politician really care more about: votes from people who need electricty thet they could provide by fixing a law, or sparing the atmosphere a few tons of CO2?

When this nonsense comes back to haunt us (in the form of energy shortages), I wonder how quickly this sort of crap stops?

Forty million for persmission to stay in business is what this sounds like to me. The fact that you can attempt to make an excuse for it by saying you're defending Mother Earth doesn't make it stink any less.