Disagreeing on Climate Change | Green Energy News

June 5, 2005 – Vol.10 No.11

DISAGREEING ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

Tony Blair wants the U.S. to tackle global warming. George W. Bush thinks technology can fix the problem, if there is indeed one, he says.

Both are correct.

Putting global warming on the U.S. national agenda would mean a continual flow of dollars and tax incentives out of Washington for research and the commercialization of clean technologies. It would also mean federal government regulations to stem emissions.

But more importantly, a national agenda on climate change would be a far greater initiative than the Apollo moon shot of the 1960’s. It would be almost daily news. It would be regular business news in the Wall Street Journal. It would even be on Fox.

People would get excited. Hype would keep it moving forward. Investors would invest in technologies to dramatically reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Face it, when the President speaks, people listen. Bush would be able to convince even nonbelievers that global warming needs to be dealt with. He could also say that, by the way, making the U.S. greener, would move the country away from oil dependence and make us more secure. Isn’t security a big issue?

There’s some evidence that even corporate America would like Washington to regulate carbon emissions. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, companies such as Cinergy, Exelon and General Electric want Washington to regulate as soon as possible.

Why? The companies fear that varying state mandates to cut greenhouse gas emissions will make compliance difficult. They want one set of rules, not many.

(They must be watching the states closely. For instance, the Nevada State Legislature has now agreed that certain energy-efficiency measures can be used by investor-owned utility companies to help them meet the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) which, too, has been increased in the legislation. It’s up from 15 percent renewable content for electricity sales by 2013 to 20 percent by 2015 - a big leap.)

Further, according to the Inquirer, these corporations would rather see Bush set carbon standards than risk the possibility that his successor might be tougher on them.

But although Bush is correct that technological fixes are needed to mitigate global warming - the hundred-plus year old technology under the hood of cars and trucks needs to be changed, for instance - his idea of a hydrogen economy is too far in the future to be of any help.

Technology is here today that can take on the problem. If Washington would begin to discuss the wide array of technological solutions to mitigate global warming the country would be on its way to helping out.