I hope Tom Steyer is not a reincarnation of Ken Lay.

bigger than bernie made off?

 

I'm inclined to share in your opinion of Ken Lay, but you lose me completely when you say awareness of CO2 heat trapping somehow started with him. Where are you getting that?

-Chap

 

Key Lay exited via heart attach, apparently on the way to prison.

He's got a wiki page

Kenneth Lay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Everything else that mojo wants us to know will be told, I suppose. Some people will want to discuss it I suppose. If all that distracts us from environmental discussions, well perhaps that is the point.

 

Any other source of information you prefer to wiki about Ken Lay? All of what's discussed at wiki appear to be matters of public record.

Conservapedia does not have a Ken Lay page.

 

Actually cap and trade program@5 might allow us to learn something 'environmental' from this thread.

Reducing SO2 emissions from coal combustion was cap and trade. It worked, the environment was improved, some companies made money by developing new technologies. Costs of implementation appear not to have destroyed the US economy. Importantly, no nefarious individual(s) appear to have profited.

Reducing CFCs to limit growth of ozone hole was not cap and trade. Countries just agreed to stop doing that.

To the limited extent we can say that there is now cap and trade for CO2, it certainly has not whacked oil companies. See Forbes, above.

What other cap and trades have their been, and what have been their effects?

 

Actually I would like to take a small quote from the Tom lay wiki page:

"When Governor George W. Bush ran for president, Lay served as host at big fund-raisers and contributed plenty of his own money to the effort."

Forget the politics. "contributed plenty of his own money" is something I'd never allow as an editor, being both colloquial and unsupported. We see at once that wikipedia has some lax editing (any number of other examples could be found). But the value if wikipedia (with its millions of participants) is its citations of sources, and (often) clear explanation of technical matters.

It is vast, and highly variable in presentation. If a student wants to now how mass spectroscopy works, it's a good place to start. Or logarithms, carbon cycling, paleotemperatures, or gemstones.

Reading a wiki page is not an end of education; it is a beginning. When you develop (by personal effort) greater understanding of any chosen field, you will know that wikipedia is shallow. But you'd be churlish and ungrateful to call it as nothing.

 

Actually I would like to take a small quote from the Tom lay wiki page:

"When Governor George W. Bush ran for president, Lay served as host at big fund-raisers and contributed plenty of his own money to the effort."

Forget the politics. "contributed plenty of his own money" is something I'd never allow as an editor, being both colloquial and unsupported. We see at once that wikipedia has some lax editing (any number of other examples could be found). But the value of wikipedia (with its millions of participants) is its citations of sources, and (often) clear explanation of technical matters.

It is vast, and highly variable in presentation. If a student wants to now how mass spectroscopy works, it's a good place to start. Or logarithms, carbon cycling, paleotemperatures, or gemstones.

Reading a wiki page is not an end of education; it is a beginning. When you develop (by personal effort) greater understanding of any chosen field, you will know that wikipedia is shallow. But you'd be churlish and ungrateful to call it as nothing.