Via LegalEagle, who also wrote:
I had an interesting meeting last week. A client of mine has a landfill he is closing. It was suggested to him that a good use of the otherwise wasted space was to cover it with solar panels. We checked into it.You know that it's a very strange world when the lawyers know more about the science of Global Warming than the scientists.
The cost of the installation would be in the millions. The sale of electricity generated would only bring in around 20 grand per year. So my client asks "why would I ever do that?" The answer is tax credits.
Which you know are going to bigger with the O man in the white house. Talk about screwed up.
The one uplifting thing to come out of the meeting was my discussion with another attorney on who gave me a ride back into Boston.
Bright guy, big Obama fund raiser. He is going to Qatar next month to attend a conference on limiting flouro-hydrocarbons.
He had enough of a technical background that I could actually discuss the micro as opposed to macro bases for the global warming science. I told him how troubled I was with the total lack of good scientific modeling and study behind the physical chemistry that is the whole basis for carbon based global warming theory. In particular, I bitched about the incongruity behind the theory and the very settled principles that carbon is a lousy insulator (i.e. that carbon molecules only excite at a very narrow band of frequencies and doubling the amount of carbon only gives you half again the insulating factor). He understood my point and was visibly disturbed by the question. I could tell he had never really thought about it. He said he was going to follow up with some techie types and get back to me. He hasn't yet. It is a small battle, but I would love to convert one of the acolytes.