Damn it Denmark, you're making the rest of us look bad....again. You take pollution and make clean energy, we use dirty energy to make more pollution.
*doublepromote *quality architectural engineering.

Lego is just another corporation making money. Why is a relationship with Shell any different than their other corporate relationships? (The Simpsons, Ghostbusters, Star Wars, The Hobbit, DC Comics, Disney, Marvel, Indiana Jones etc). Because it's good publicity... people don't like "dirty" energy. Shell may be a bunch of assholes, but if you're going to slam the industry Greenpeace, make sure you don't drive a car to work, and you might want to reassess how far you look down your nose at companies like Shell when you send a pollution spewing, fuel sucking Sea Shepherd out to make a TV show, surrounded all day long by polymer materials made mostly from the gas and oil that make your life easier and less costly. Hypocritical bunch of bullying asshats that will fuck anyone over for some publicity.

I replied generically on the video, but as a reply to anything regarding cap & trade this reasoning doesn't track. Maybe it would sorta be appropriate as a response if what cap & trade consisted of was a flat tax on gasoline.

I'm also for repealing the subsidization of all dirty energy -- and the entire environmental movement would likely agree with me on that (even alleged fraud Al Gore!).

So here's the only real connection. In both cases we're talking about market externalities -- cases where market transactions between two entities cause harm (or benefit) to people not involved in the transaction. This is never desirable; you want prices to reflect the harm or benefit you're causing those other people, otherwise you open yourself up to malinvestment's ugly stepsister, malconsumption (and yes, I made that word up, but it is just like that other made-up Austrian word, only regarding consumption instead of investment).

One highly-regarded way to bring externalities under the auspices of market forces is to use Pigouvian taxes. Sometimes you get some centrally-planned tax rate (like all flat sin taxes), but ideally you want some sort of market-driven mechanism setting the size of the Pigouvian tax -- which is what cap and trade is all about.

Anyways, I'm just leading you to water (100% piss-free!), I don't really have much hope you'll drink.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
http://videosift.com/video/Penn-Teller-Bullshit-Soft-Drink-Tax

Up the butthole with this one, dear sir!

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^NetRunner:
Oh, and another thing to keep in mind, Joe Barton is the ranking Republican on the Energy Committee. If some terrible mistake on the part of the American people results in the Republicans taking the House, this guy will be chairman of the committee that sets energy policy.

The MMS, the organization responsible in regulating off sea drilling isn't under the energy department, it is under the department of the interior.


Not exactly -- MMS is in charge of approving leases, and enforcing the laws governing oil drilling. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has a huge jurisdiction, including pretty much everything having to do with commerce and energy, including writing the laws that govern oil drilling.

Being an unabashed whore for big oil like this seems like a bad person to have anywhere near the levers of power. Not to mention, Barton only went slightly beyond the general Republican party position on this topic -- the making BP pay into an escrow fund to be used to pay damage claims is evil, and wrong, and horrible, and scary, and a sign that fascism has come to America.

...but at the same time, they want to tell you that Obama's not doing enough about the crisis.

PS: I also said "energy policy", thinking "subsidies and deregulation for dirty energy", not "he's going to make oil drilling even less safe", though I wouldn't put it past someone who's so obviously big oil's lap dog.

@bcglorf

About 85,000 used nuclear fuel bundles are generated in Canada each year.

As of December 32, 2007, there were over 2,000,000 nuclear fuel bundles in Canada.

(source)

RADIOACTIVE WASTES
High Level Waste

Over 99 percent of the radioactivity created by a nuclear reactor is contained in the spent fuel. An unprotected individual standing one metre from a CANDU fuel bundle just out of the reactor would receive a lethal dose in seconds. This intensely radioactive material is called high level nuclear waste.

Spent fuel contains hundreds of radioactive substances created inside the reactors: (1) when uranium atoms split, the fragments are radioactive; these are the "fission products"; (2) when uranium atoms absorb neutrons without splitting, they are transmuted into "transuranium elements" such as plutonium, americium, and curium.

Due to the presence of these toxic materials, spent fuel remains extremely dangerous for millions of years.

RADIOACTIVE WASTES
Decommissioning Wastes

Structural materials in the core of an operating reactor become radioactive from neutron bombardment. The cost of dismantling such a radioactive structure approaches the cost of building it in the first place.

Current plans are to wait forty years, then use underwater cutting techniques to minimize radiation exposures to the workers. Hundreds of truckloads of radioactive rubble will result from each dismantled reactor.

(source)

And I'd like to see your work regarding the claim of how dirty or dangerous solar cells are.

And let's keep in mind cells are not the only form of solar energy.

And don't try to deny the fact that your solution to replace a dangerous, dirty energy technology (coal & oil) was to use an already existing dangerous and dirty energy technology (nuclear).

So, how much dirty energy did I burn watching this very nice video?