"CEOs call for action against climate change"

[alien42]

story

"The chief executives of 10 major corporations, on the eve of the State of the Union address, urged President Bush on Monday to support mandatory reductions in climate-changing pollution and establish reductions targets.

"We can and must take prompt action to establish a coordinated, economy-wide market-driven approach to climate protection," the executives from a broad range of industries said in a letter to the president.

Bush, who in the past has rejected mandatory controls on carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases, was expected to address climate change in his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, but has repeatedly argued that voluntary efforts are the best approach.

Major industry groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers continue to oppose so-called "cap and trade" proposals to cut climate changing pollution, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

But the 10 executives, representing major utilities, aluminum and chemical companies and financial institutions, said mandatory reductions are needed and that "the cornerstone of this approach" should be a cap-and-trade system.

Members of the group, called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, include chief executives of Alcoa Inc., BP America Inc., DuPont Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co., and Duke Energy Corp.

At a news conference, the executives said that mandatory reductions of heat-trapping emissions can be imposed without economic harm and would lead to economic opportunities if done economy-wide and with provisions to mitigate costs.

Many of the companies already have voluntarily moved to curb greenhouse pollution, they said. But the executives also said they do not believe voluntary efforts will suffice.

"It must be mandatory, so there is no doubt about our actions," said Jim Rogers, chairman of Duke Energy. "The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

Fred Krupp, president of Environmenal Defense, a member of the alliance, called the executives' support "a game changer" in the debate over climate. "We are asking Congress to not wait for a new administration and not wait for the presidential debates."

In the letter the executives urged Congress "to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions." The legislation should cut these releases 10 percent below today's levels within a decade and at least 60 percent by 2050, according to the action plan.

At his daily news briefing, White House press secretary Tony Snow dismissed any call for mandatory carbon caps to deal with climate. "There's been some talk about, sort of, binding of economy-wide carbon caps in the speech, but they are not part of the president's proposal," said Snow.

The first days of the new Democratically controlled Congress have seen a rush of legislation introduced to address climate change, all of which have some variation of a cap-and-trade approach to dealing with climate change.

Among those pushing cap-and-trade climate bills are two leading presidential aspirants, Sens. Barack Obama, D-Illinois and John McCain, R-Arizona.

Essentially such a mechanisms would have mandatory limits of greenhouse gas emissions, but would allow companies to trade emission credits to reduce the cost. Companies that can't meet the cap could purchase credits from those that exceed them or in some case from a government auction.

Also signing the letter to Bush were the executives of Lehman Brothers, PG&E Corp., PNM Resources, FPL Group and four leading environmental organizations."



when the CEOs of companies such as "Alcoa Inc., BP America Inc., DuPont Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co., and Duke Energy Corp." are asking for mandatory environmental regulations you know the administration has really screwed the pooch.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: alien42
when the CEOs of companies such as "Alcoa Inc., BP America Inc., DuPont Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co., and Duke Energy Corp." are asking for mandatory environmental regulations you know the administration has really screwed the pooch.

Of course they want mandatory environmental regulations. The companies aren't going to do it themselves because there are other companies in the industry that will say screw it. Another words, one company will have to pass on costs of putting in voluntary environmental controls while another company will continue to offer their low, prices from high pollution factories. Mandatory controls would force everyone to do it and continue to offer a somewhat level playing field.

 

[Genx87]

Why dont they put these in place if they feel this strongly?
If big business is calling for these measures it can only help their bottom line. Most likely these costs which they can absorb and pass onto their customers will make it tougher for competition to enter the market and or drive the weaker corporations out all together.

 

[Starbuck1975]

when the CEOs of companies such as "Alcoa Inc., BP America Inc., DuPont Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co., and Duke Energy Corp." are asking for mandatory environmental regulations you know the administration has really screwed the pooch.

But I thought corporations were evil entities, intent on destroying our environment for short term gains. If anything, I think many industries and corporations within America have communicated a willingness to invest in and seek out technologies that will, in the long run, will protect the environment...but...

Of course they want mandatory environmental regulations. The companies aren't going to do it themselves because there are other companies in the industry that will say screw it. Another words, one company will have to pass on costs of putting in voluntary environmental controls while another company will continue to offer their low, prices from high pollution factories. Mandatory controls would force everyone to do it and continue to offer a somewhat level playing field.

Exactly...no company will take the risk of imposing such restrictions on themselves if the playing field is not level...GE or Caterpillar can invest millions in hybrid energy or battery operated products, but they stand to lose in the marketplace if their competitors choose to maintain the less costly and more profitable status quo.

In an ideal world, the government should establish regulations to protect the environment and level the playing field...and then leave corporate America to seek out the innovations and technologies within those regulations to protect our environment.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Why dont they put these in place if they feel this strongly?
If big business is calling for these measures it can only help their bottom line. Most likely these costs which they can absorb and pass onto their customers will make it tougher for competition to enter the market and or drive the weaker corporations out all together.

They are too cheap to pay for it? Do Ya Think?

 

[blackangst1]

LOL good luck with that fellas

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Why dont they put these in place if they feel this strongly?
If big business is calling for these measures it can only help their bottom line. Most likely these costs which they can absorb and pass onto their customers will make it tougher for competition to enter the market and or drive the weaker corporations out all together.

Mandatory government regulations protect them from lawsuits. This way, if sued, they can point to the law. Otherwise, they might be forced to depend upon the fickle opinions of an easily-swayed jury.
You can see it in this quote here: "It must be mandatory, so there is no doubt about our actions."

edit: also, they have their hands out (of course):
"At a news conference, the executives said that mandatory reductions of heat-trapping emissions can be imposed without economic harm and would lead to economic opportunities if done economy-wide and with provisions to mitigate costs."

 

[Zebo]

Of course they want it. Increases barriers to entry from competition. More government sanctioned virtual monopolies like insurance co's

 

[BrownTown]

In case you didn't know, these are the companies with the most nuclear plants, so of course they want CO2 caps since they produce less CO2 than their competitors, this will give them a competitive advantage in the bulk power markets and help them make more $$$.

 

[Zebo]

Until we do something about cars, something no one want to talk about as it impedes them personally climate change will continue. Just look at Socal or any major city like Las Vegas or Phoenix..hardy any industry whatsoever however you can't even breath after getting off the plane because of cars, it's so bad you can't even see the mountains and sometimes even billboards they are all surrounded by cause the air is so thick with green house gases among other things. OTOH the dirtiest coal fired power plants are surrounded by majestic meadows and crystal clean air and much higher levels of O2 .

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Why dont they put these in place if they feel this strongly?
If big business is calling for these measures it can only help their bottom line. Most likely these costs which they can absorb and pass onto their customers will make it tougher for competition to enter the market and or drive the weaker corporations out all together.

I do know that PG&E is a big alternative energy producer, using hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, etc to produce energy. Their cost per kilowatt is much higher than their competitors. Forcing their competitors to get off coal would help PG&E (and the environment), so kudos to them.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic
edit: also, they have their hands out (of course):
"At a news conference, the executives said that mandatory reductions of heat-trapping emissions can be imposed without economic harm and would lead to economic opportunities if done economy-wide and with provisions to mitigate costs."

damn right they see money in it.


for as much as companies will complain about getting regulated, they secretly love it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Why dont they put these in place if they feel this strongly?
If big business is calling for these measures it can only help their bottom line. Most likely these costs which they can absorb and pass onto their customers will make it tougher for competition to enter the market and or drive the weaker corporations out all together.

I don't think there is any way actually implementing such changes could help their bottom line. The equipment to make any further improvement in their outputs costs big $$$. However, their campaign to push this agenda could help their bottom line by improving their reputation in the public view.

 

[sandorski]

Some of them likely have their own self-interest in mind, but that doesn't negate the need for action on Greenhouse Gas emmissions.

The last few weeks have been quite interesting up here in Canada. Our Conservative Federal Government basically has been mirroring the Bush Admins stance on Global Warming/Climate Change, rejecting Kyoto, promoting Industry self-regulation, and putting into place GHG Emmissions targets some 30-40 years from now that don't even reach the Kyoto targets. However, they had to abandon all that as GW and support for Kyoto amongst the Voter has become the #1 issue in the Nation. Their policy was basically scrapped, Minister of the Environment Fired/Replaced, and now PM(Prime Minister) Harper and other MPs(Member of Parliament) are running across the country announcing one GHG Reduction Project/Policy after another.

They Cut and Ran, Flip-flopped, and began Hugging Trees undoubtedly just for retaining Power. Unlike their US counter-parts though, they know when their goose is cooked and don't see admitting a mistake as a sign of weakness. Kudos to the Opposition Parties though, whose efforts to make GW the #1 issue are much appreciated.

 

[piasabird]

If India and China and countries in the old USSR are exempt form climate change regulations then it is very dubious how much it will have effect. I am for some new laws on the environment if the laws are enforced everywhere in the USA equally. Right now I live in a Metro area around St Louis on the East Side and I have to get my car inspected due to federally mandated laws set up by the EPA. However, other areas in my state and in other places in the USA, other people are exempt becase they dont live in a more heavily polluted area. However, all pollution west of me blows in my direction making it even worse. So everyone in the USA should have to have special EPA forced inspections of their cars, so everyone in the USA knows what exactly what certain select parts of this country have to live through.

There are imporvements that could be made if the Feds were willing to back some things like more Solar Power and more Hydro and Air generated power, and more public transportation that is Eco Friendly instead of making a few select people suffer.

 

[charrison]

IT is pretty obvious what is happening here, GE is trying to forced legislation so other companies will have to buy their products. Take a look at GE product line, clean coal, nuke plants, solar, wind turbines, high effeciency motors, turbines, jets,...

While I have no doubt these products made by these companies will help stem co2 emissions and pollution, they not doing it because they are going green, it is because they are chasing green. With legislation they can save the world(global warming or not) and fatten their pocketbooks a bit faster.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Why dont they put these in place if they feel this strongly?
If big business is calling for these measures it can only help their bottom line. Most likely these costs which they can absorb and pass onto their customers will make it tougher for competition to enter the market and or drive the weaker corporations out all together.

Because they realizes the need and the demand but market disfunction prevents its realization.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: charrison
IT is pretty obvious what is happening here, GE is trying to forced legislation so other companies will have to buy their products. Take a look at GE product line, clean coal, nuke plants, solar, wind turbines, high effeciency motors, turbines, jets,...

While I have no doubt these products made by these companies will help stem co2 emissions and pollution, they not doing it because they are going green, it is because they are chasing green. With legislation they can save the world(global warming or not) and fatten their pocketbooks a bit faster.

Strange, you almost sound like a socialist or some other type of wacky anti-corporate liberal.

 

[BrownTown]

It really should be noted that most of these compaines have an interest in seeing caps on greenhouse gas emmisions. People don;t seem to understand that the way these caps work is that if you produce less power then you sell them for $$$ to other companies. ITs called free money if you are one of those companies that is already below the proposed caps. GE also builds alot of the alternative energy solutions, so they would see improved buisness from an increase in construction of new low emission power plants. Alcoa is the only one I really don;t get.

I'm not saying that these companies or people don't really care about global warming, but its not hard to see where many of these companies might benefit from a carbon cap + trade system. And it doesn't mean that companies agaisnt this are somehow evil either. Companies with large investments in coal have a duty to their employees and shareholders to try to fight against greenhouse gas regulation since it will hurt their investors and employees if caps are put in place. Whether or not they even beleive in global warming is irrelevent, an executive is simply not gonna support something which would be extremely damaging to their company.

Just ask yourself if you worked for a power company and the CEO suddenly decided to shut down all your coal plants, and spend 5 Billion bucks on new wind farms, of course now your are being layed off since the company has to reduce costs in order to pay that money. OR if you have money invested in a coal minning company and suddenly they decide coal is bad and they are gonna stop minning it. Say bye bye to your lifes savings as they go down the drain, but rest assured its all for the better.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: charrison
IT is pretty obvious what is happening here, GE is trying to forced legislation so other companies will have to buy their products. Take a look at GE product line, clean coal, nuke plants, solar, wind turbines, high effeciency motors, turbines, jets,...

While I have no doubt these products made by these companies will help stem co2 emissions and pollution, they not doing it because they are going green, it is because they are chasing green. With legislation they can save the world(global warming or not) and fatten their pocketbooks a bit faster.

Strange, you almost sound like a socialist or some other type of wacky anti-corporate liberal.

No, just a realist. It will wind up being pork projects in the end. GE and others will be leading the way for cleaner energy, but I dont think we need to have the lead the legislation.