Oh, is that how you get those MPG figures. Somehow your cars are absorbing and processing the radiation you bring back from work

 

"Finally, it is the company I work for" -- yeah, I figured that out

One aspect of investing in FPL that I find very intriguing is the option to buy stock either on the open market, or from FPL itself at market prices. The latter option means that the stock purchase money goes directly to FPL, increasing the money in FPL's pocket, rather than an arbitrary investor who is divesting stock. Something of an ongoing IPO in it's nature. This stock has voting rights, so enough people buy it, they can influence the company's decisions. I am no accountant, but my superficial read of their balance sheet looks pretty good. They also have seen very nice increases in their unit stock value -- somewhere around 30% in the past six months.

 

Here is something for you to chew on.
Sorry for the long paste, but WP requires registration so this is the highlight.

Senate Rejects Greenhouse Gas Limits

By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 23, 2005; Page A08



The Senate yesterday rejected a measure calling for mandatory limits on emissions linked to global warming, siding with the Bush administration's position that the restrictions would cost jobs, drive industry overseas and run up consumers' energy bills.

Voting 60 to 38, lawmakers rejected an amendment to a major energy bill that would have forced reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases to 2000 levels by 2010 and created an emissions trading program. Eleven Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the measure, and six Republicans voted with the Democrats to support it.

Lawmakers then passed by voice vote a nonbinding resolution calling for Congress to approve mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions in a way that does not "significantly harm the . . . economy." The resolution also acknowledges the "growing scientific consensus that human activity is a substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere." Some environmentalists said the resolution -- while lacking any teeth -- marked a turning point in the debate and indicated a willingness to take action.

 

An interesting article:
http://www.livescience.com/technolog..._solution.html

 

Interesting, but there have been many proposals and theories like that. The problem I see is that we would be messing around with the environment more hoping it will go back to "normal" whereas I think the approach we should be taking is to stop harming the environment and let the earth re-balance itself, with some help (but not flat out manipulation) from us.

I also suspect that this (and other similar proposals) are clever ways to get us to give up more liberty and freedom in the form of taxes to pay for the project. Notice how crises (real or manufactured) get used by the ruling elite to manipulate us into giving away more and more freedom.