Tag Archives: CCX

Working To Bring Down The Cost Of Energy For Americans

Posted on by

On Sunday, The Independent Journal Review (IJR) posted an article about the changes the Trump administration is making to the offshore wind projects started by President Biden.

The article reports:

The Trump administration’s systematic dismantling of Joe Biden’s offshore wind dreams continued on Monday.

The Department of Interior (DOI) announced an agreement with Duke Energy in which the company agrees to cancel its plans for a huge wind project offshore North Carolina — adjacent to the Carolina Long Bay area — in exchange for a payment of $129 million.

Despite claims from critics that the payment amounts to the administration bribing Duke to cancel its project, the truth is that the funds represent a partial reimbursement of the company’s lease costs consistent with federal statutes and regulations. The good news for North Carolina is the way Duke plans to reinvest the funds.

“This settlement allows Duke Energy to refocus $129 million in ways that directly benefit our customers and communities in the Carolinas,” said Kodwo Ghartey-Tagoe, executive vice president and chief executive officer of Duke Energy Carolinas. “Under the agreement, Duke Energy will reinvest nearly $129 million in additional generating capacity, which may include advancing new nuclear and natural gas generation, and grid enhancements to strengthen reliability, support continued growth in the Carolinas and keep costs as low as possible.”

So, rather than saddling ratepayers with higher bills which invariably result from subsidy deals between state governments and offshore wind farms, Duke plans to target its funds to new, 24/7 baseload capacity. Those hardest hit will be the craven public officials who had hoped to signal their green virtues related to the wind fiasco.

The article notes:

The settlement with Duke Energy is the latest in a series of similar deals between the Interior Department and offshore developers. Since early 2026, the DOI has executed multiple similar deals to unwind early-stage offshore wind leases, redirecting capital toward reliable energy sources as part of the Energy Dominance agenda. These deals provide partial reimbursements for lease payments while encouraging companies to invest in natural gas, nuclear, oil, LNG, or geothermal projects.

Green energy has never been about the environment. In 2010 I posted an article about the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) running out of money after the Democrats in Congress could not pass their cap and trade legislation. A number of high-profile Democrats were the ones who lost money when the CCX folded.

Carbon Credits Are Unraveling

Posted on by

On Friday, WattsUpWithThat posted an article about the very predictable unraveling of carbon credits. This is not a new phenomena.

In 2003, CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange) was founded. It was assumed that when Democrats got control of Congress, they would pass Cap and Trade legislation and carbon credits would be exchanged through CCX. Some major Democrat figures were heavily invested in CCX. Cap and Trade never passed and the CCX began laying off employees in 2010. (article here)

Yesterday WattsUpWithThat reported:

The world of carbon credits has long been presented as a major tool for supposed climate woes. Advocates of this system have been quick to sing its praises, positioning it as the ultimate solution for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. But skeptics, like yours truly, have long pointed out the inherent flaws in such a system. Now, even The Guardian, a publication that has been a staunch advocate of climate alarmism, seems to be having second thoughts. It’s almost as if they’re saying, “Oops, maybe the skeptics had a point.”

The Guardian’s Late Awakening

The article from The Guardian delves deep into the world of carbon credits, questioning their actual impact on reducing emissions. It’s almost amusing to see them now asking:

“Carbon credits are supposed to offset the emissions caused by companies and individuals. But do they really reduce greenhouse gases?”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/19/do-carbon-credit-reduce-emissions-greenhouse-gases

A question that should have been asked and critically examined long before jumping on the carbon credit bandwagon.

The Mirage of Offsetting

The Guardian highlights a significant concern: the illusion of offsetting. Purchasing carbon credits doesn’t necessarily equate to genuine offsetting of emissions. Many of these credits are tied to projects that would have been executed regardless, meaning no real reduction in emissions.

“Many of the projects supported by carbon credits, such as the construction of windfarms and solar parks, would have been built anyway.”

In essence, it’s a system that allows companies to parade their “green” credentials without making any tangible changes to their carbon footprint.

The Inconsistencies of Carbon Credit Accounting

The article also sheds light on the convoluted and inconsistent world of carbon credit accounting. With no unified standard and a lack of rigorous oversight, it’s a system rife with potential for manipulation.

“There is no single standard for carbon credits, and critics argue that this has allowed projects that do not deliver real-world emissions reductions to flourish.”

It’s a system that skeptics have long warned about, and it seems these concerns were not unfounded.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. People are beginning to wake up.