CEO's Press Congress to Pass Tougher Greenhouse Gas Legislation

[Octavian]

CEOs seek tough global-warming laws
Leaders from GE to Lehman Bros. suggest lawmakers adopt a mandatory, market-driven legislative solution.
January 22 2007: 3:06 PM EST
________________________________________ __________________________________


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Chief executives from such major corporations as General Electric and DuPont teamed up with environmental organizations Monday, urging U.S. lawmakers Monday to pass sweeping legislation that would ultimately cut greenhouse gas emissions.

"The time has come for constructive action that draws strength equally from business, government, and non-governmental stakeholders," said Jeff Immelt, Chairman and CEO of General Electric, who participated in the program

The United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), which includes 10 various corporations including diversified conglomerate GE (down $0.15 to $36.80, Charts), aluminum producer Alcoa (down $0.18 to $31.22, Charts), oil giant BP (down $0.56 to $63.96, Charts) and investment bank Lehman Brothers (down $0.55 to $82.60, Charts), said it ultimately hopes to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 percent from its current levels by 2050.

The plan, while not endorsing any particular proposed legislation, comes just before President Bush is scheduled to deliver his State of the Union address Tuesday evening. Bush is expected to discuss U.S. energy policy during his speech.

USCAP's proposal, entitled "A Call For Action", asks Congress to take a mandatory, "market-driven approach" to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Part of that plan would include a "cap-and-trade program," which has taken hold in Europe.

Under the program, a company is given a set number of emission credits, but would have the freedom to sell, or trade, those remaining credits to other firms that might have spent their own emission credits.

USCAP members said that using this market-based approach would not only drive new, greener technology, but it could also be a significant source of growth of economic and job growth for the U.S.

The organization, which includes four environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council, said it is hoping that Congress will pass legislation regarding this policy some time this year.

Right now, the United States is the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, although China is set to take over the top spot in the next few years.

The battle against global warming has gained momentum since Democrats reclaimed control of Congress in November, but critics of new carbon restrictions have also made their voice heard.

At a American Petroleum Institute event in December, opponents of mandatory carbon laws suggested that new U.S. legislative changes would have little impact on global warming since other major industrial countries like China and India are not on board.

________________________________________ ________________________________
http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/22/news...ions/index.htm


Those damned CEO's want to wreck our economy and hamstring our companies; why would they be in favor for generally better and more strict regulation if it's going to ruin our economy as many here have time and time again interjected with little evidence?

This is a good developement either way; the wheels of progress amongst some corporate giants are at least, apparently moving in the right direction.

Perhaps they understand the consiquences..... just a final thought.

Thoughts?

[kartaron]

These companies have leveraged themselves to have an advantage if current 'eco-friendly' technologies are used widely. They want the government to force companies to buy their products. If they could sell the technologies without force, they would.

The market doesnt seem to think it will pass judging from the rapidly dropping stock prices of the companies.

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by kartaron

These companies have leveraged themselves to have an advantage if current 'eco-friendly' technologies are used widely. They want the government to force companies to buy their products. If they could sell the technologies without force, they would.

1st) How is this a sign that the companies want to force the government to buy their products?

2nd) Show me the details of how these specific companies have "leveraged" themselves.

Originally Posted by kartaron

The market doesnt seem to think it will pass judging from the rapidly dropping stock prices of the companies.

Slumping stock prices? I don't think you can say that. The Dow, S&P and Nasdaq all took hits today but they have been steadily rising for a while.

If you didn't notice, Bush will be putting through some regulation and the CEO's in the article above are essentially urging him to take it a step further.


6 Months: http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/cha...1&ind_compind=

[Octavian]

ttt

[kartaron]

Alcoa has been asking for higher Cafe standards since 2000. Higher cafe standards mean more aluminum in cars (their product) to maintain power to weight ratios.

BP's new marketing campaign is green. This is simply a branch of their marketing.

Ill let GE's Immelt speak for himself:

In the Ecomagination talk there is showmanship but also some reality. GE's new philosophy, which roughly coincides with the ascension of Jeffrey R. Immelt, 49, to the chief executive position four years ago, is this: If you can't beat the environmentalists, join them. Immelt's GE is going to make a business out of being green. It will not just clean up its own industrial act (cutting emissions 1% over the next seven years, when emissions would otherwise have risen 40%) but also get more deeply into the business of selling eco-friendly devices to other companies.

So is Ecomagination just a sales pitch? "It's primarily that," confesses Immelt. "In its essence it's a way to sell more products and services."

[ThRiLl]

I have no problem with the US government deciding to adopt tougher emissions standards so long as it is a result of the domestic political process. I only have a problem of it being instituted as the result of an international fiat that cripples modern economies while allowing giant developing nations to match and exceed the levels of damage that we do to the environment. We already face the problems that result from going down the wrong path, how does it make sense to allow the giants to do the same, just to face the problems that we are now stuck with? The second you give exceptions to "developing" countries then this ceases to really be an environmental treaty and instead becomes developmental aid treaty or a trade treaty with the deck clearly stacked in the other guys favor. I doubt China and India really need this much extra help.

[J-Fight]

Yeah but China and India don't produce anywhere near the CO2 that America produces. Remember, America only makes up something like 6% of the world population, but is responsible for 25% of the pollution.

[ThRiLl]

Originally Posted by J-Fight

Yeah but China and India don't produce anywhere near the CO2 that America produces. Remember, America only makes up something like 6% of the world population, but is responsible for 25% of the pollution.

Just how long do you think it will take them to surpass us if they travel down the same road we did? If the environment is really in danger, why would you want to allow them to make up the difference and even surpass it? After 20 years the Kyoto Protocol would most likely have resulted in a substantial net gain in emissions.

Why is their economic interest an excuse for them but not for us?

[J-Fight]

Originally Posted by ThRiLl

Just how long do you think it will take them to surpass us if they travel down the same road we did? If the environment is really in danger, why would you want to allow them to make up the difference and even surpass it? After 20 years the Kyoto Protocol would most likely have resulted in a substantial net gain in emissions.

Why is their economic interest an excuse for them but not for us?

Let's make a deal. If the US makes a concerted effort to curb greenhouse gasses, and India and China do nothing, then we will have good reason to kick their asses up and down Asia. I guess we should start by nuking all of their sattelites, since it seems space wars is the conflict of the future.