Green take one

 Drudge has a way of combining headlines:
;BANK OF AMERICA Pledges $50 Billion to Combat 'Climate Change'...

Flashback: 'Got $45 billion bailout during financial crisis'...

The first story has a list of how they plan to spend "their" money:

The company has spent $17.9 billion toward its initial pledge, including $8.4 billion for energy efficiency activities, including low-cost loans and grants for retrofitting low-income neighborhoods for energy efficiency. It spent $5 billon on renewable energy projects, including helping the San Jose Unified School District in California to run on solar energy. An additional $1 billion went to consumer financing of hybrid vehicles.

 Uh, isn't that the money of small people who put their savings into the bank? Plus the taxpayer bail out?
 And why are you "helping" wealthy San Jose to buy expensive solar energy when they haven't balanced their budget for over ten years? Will they ever pay it back?


note the mayor laments their budget shortfall will make them layoff cops and firemen...why not pay the cops and use cheaper energy to run the schools?

The solar panels (made in China?) will cut their utility bills by 25% which means they will pay for themselves by saving 25 million dollars over the next 30 years....and let the BA and Chevron to be able to brag about being "green"...
But then in the small print you see this:

The cost savings are possible - and predictable - because of a bank-arranged service contract over 20 years that will enable the district to purchase power at fixed rates significantly below market utility rates. Under the partnership, Bank of America will own the solar equipment, a commitment making it eligible for $4.2 million in incentives obtained through the California Solar Initiative and from federal investment tax credits

Translation: They get lower energy bills because they pay a lower rate than you do, (but since the electric company still has lots of expenses, it probably means you pay more). And then the bank will make money because the government will give them tax credits, so the companies and ban, will pay less money in taxes.

"This is living proof that schools can improve their facilities and help the environment without tapping their capital budgets," said Jorge Gonzalez, president of the district board of education.

Yes. I believe the phrase used to describe that type of saving is "robbing Peter to pay Paul"...

How much carbon equivalent is saved?

 the project is expected to reduce carbon emissions by more than 3,100 metric tons per year.

Translation? Earthlab link: 

The U.S. emits the equivalent of about 118 pounds of carbon dioxide per resident every day, a figure that includes emissions from industry. Annually, that's nearly 20 metric tons per American

Annually, that's nearly 20 metric tons per American so it saves the equivalent of what would be saved by killing off 150 "useless eaters". Maybe that's why the Austrailia Green party backs legal euthanasia and likes the ideas of Peter Singer..(I'm kidding...I think...)

Bottom line: Guess who pays the bill.

So you can take my retirement money and give it away? I'm confused....

bailout tracker here. it sounds like they are pouring more money into programs that got them in trouble in the first pace, but then what do I know?
But this article suggests they are tightening their spending: cutting pension contributions and laying off 10 thousand employees, mainly police, firemen, etc.


But of course, you know where all this leads: To printing money to make up the deficit, and then to hyperinflation.

The Carter years are here again...