Ned Potter is the science correspondent for ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson." He has reported on such topics as space exploration, the human genome and climate change.
RECENT POSTS
- Mars Rover: Stuck in the Mud
- Tranquility Base
- NASA's Ares 1-X Test: The View From Above
- The Yes Men
- The Missing Link -- Not
- Moon Crash Kicked Up Plume After All
- Moon Crash: Where's the Water?
- Green Apple: Firm is Latest to Leave U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- Recovery.gov: Your Tax Dollars at Work
- Climate: Power Companies Quit U.S Chamber of Commerce
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
What Should the President Say?
January 23, 2007 1:43 PM
There's an old saying among corporate lobbyists in Washington that the only thing worse than draconian laws...is uncertainty about draconian laws.
We've been promised the President will talk about new energy measures tonight; Ann Compton has an early hint HERE.
A lot of companies have lined up on the White House steps over the years, warning that caps on greenhouse gas emissions would hurt their bottom line for uncertain benefit, and put the U.S. at a disadvantage against countries, such as China and India, that were unlikely to give up their own chance at wealth. Take a look, for example, at what the National Mining Association has to say.
But there's been a second thread--companies actually asking the government to come down on them. They argue that greenhouse-gas caps are 1) inevitable, and 2) potentially profitable for many of them.
There's a group called The United States Climate Action Partnership, which includes such companies as GE, Alcoa, DuPont, BP, Pacific Gas & Electric, Duke Energy, Lehman Brothers, and others. They've joined forces with four environmental groups--Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and the World Resources Institute.
Take a look at their language:
"We believe a U.S. policy framework must include the following.
--Mandatory approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the major emitting sectors including emissions from large stationary sources, transportation, and energy use in commercial and residential buildings that could be phased in over time....
--Flexible approaches to establish a price signal for carbon....
--Approaches that create incentives and encourage actions by other countries, including large emitting economies in the developing world, to implement GHG emission reduction strategies."
You can find the full text HERE.
Environmental Defense has its own version HERE.
And, for one company's statement, find DuPont's HERE.
So. A Republican President and a Democratic Congress, all in the same room tonight. Thoughts welcome.
January 23, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (4)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
It all sounds too good to be true. Large companies asking for caps on emissions? Laudable, but I can't help but wonder. The President has stated repeatedly that such actions would be bad for the economy. Is big business deserting Bush, too?
Cynic that I am, I have to wonder if there's more to this than meets the eye.
Posted by: Andy | Jan 23, 2007 1:58:36 PM
I'm in agreement with Andy--this is too coincidental to be a real change of heart, and I suspect that this initiative will go the way of the President's planned spaceflights to Mars. In the year since the President loudly proclaimed that America is "addicted to oil," his administration has done absolutely nothing to cure that condition or even begin to remedy its side effects (such as greenhouse gases and climate change). Now, suddenly, the President wants to cast himself as the protector of the environment with his "20 in 10" program. Please forgive my cynicism, but I'm positively certain that this "program" is nothing but legerdemain to take the country's attention off the abysmal circumstances in Iraq. As I commented today in your colleague Jake Tapper's blog:
"I don't expect much from the SOTU speech tonight, just the President desperately trying to shore up his sinking approval ratings by making insincere overtures to the Dems in limited domestic policy issues and by keeping the ever-worsening condition of Iraq out of the important parts of the speech. Ideally tonight, the President would admit his mismanagement of the war and assert that he'd adopt the Iraq Study Commission plans as his "new way forward," but little chance of that happening. Instead, we'll be left with such half-baked and ill-conceived ideas such as making spaceflights to Mars. Perhaps his speech should be greeted with the cries of 'Only two more years!'"
Of course, I'd be pleased to eat my words if the President would show good faith by doing something really bold and imaginative like endorsing and adopting the Kyoto Protocols!
Posted by: chuck | Jan 23, 2007 3:13:42 PM
hen less than half the country votes why do you not have a dedicated channel for the few that actuallt wanna listen to him and why do you need to waste more time telling us what was said we want our normal programming there are tons of news channels if we want to hear about it we would be on a news channel not doing other stuff and leaveing the tv on with the sound turned down so we can see our show when this crap is over
Posted by: joe public | Jan 23, 2007 10:17:42 PM
It seems to be taking some time but more and more the world is beginning to realize that the way forward is with nuclear energy.
All the other alternatives don't add up to much unfortunately.
Posted by: Bob | Jan 27, 2007 9:41:54 AM
Post a comment
