Stop Global Warming called for by Big Business & Environmental groups.

[What_Exit]

A coalition of some very large Corporations and environmental groups that includes the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, the Environmental Defense Fund and the World Resources Institute have join in a call for a federal policy to reduce green-house gases and to speed adoption of climate-friendly technologies.

It is about time, I hope Congress takes up this challenge and does not wait two more years.

List of tired excuses why we should not work on this:
It is too big off a problem; we cannot stop global warming anyway.
It is not caused by human pollution. There are even a few crackpot scientists still support this idea.
We should not bother trying, China is about to become the number one producer of Green House gases anyway.

We can stop global warming. We can do much. There are many technologies to use and many small things that could add up to huge reductions. As we develop new technologies, we can ramp up industry to sell these products around the world. Solar, Wind and Fuel Cells have vast commercial potential. More nuclear power in nations already part of the nuclear club could be a big boost. Efficiency in appliances, lighting and vehicles is even more important. It is possible to make Coal plants much cleaner. Our own Una could speak from authority on this issue. We can beat global warming before we lose the coast cities and set of all the additional problems associated with global warming.

As we reduce our Green House gas production, we also reduce our dependency on foreign oil. This will help keep oil prices lower around the world and reduce some of the money that funnels its way to fund terrorism. We are still the #1 consumer of oil at this time. It will have an effect. In the long run if Japan, Europe, China & the US start producing primarily alternate fuel and very efficient hybrid cars, the demand for oil will drop by an enormous amount. This could be our best way to fight terrorism along with the more important goal of stopping global warming.

Reference section:
From this NPR story:

[QUOTE=NPR]
Some of corporate America’s biggest names including Alcoa, General Electric and DuPont are urging Congress to help offset global warming. Marketplace’s Sam Eaton talks with Madeleine Brand about why big business is calling on Washington to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
[/QUOTE]

Many more details from these articles: Times, Forbes, semi-random.

Side note:
[QUOTE=Times Article linked above]
House Democrats passed legislation to rescind $14 billion in tax breaks and subsidies for domestic oil producers and use the money for alternative energy and conservation technologies.
[/QUOTE]

Jim

[RTFirefly]

There were a couple of stories in the WaPo this morning about this:

CEOs Urge Bush to Limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions

On the eve of the State of the Union address, the chief executives of 10 major corporations urged President Bush to embrace mandatory ceilings on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in order to stem climate change.

But yesterday White House spokesman Tony Snow said that binding caps on carbon dioxide emissions would not be part of the president’s proposals tonight. And a member of the corporate delegation said that last week the White House canceled a meeting with the executives that had been scheduled for yesterday morning.

<snip>

The executives support a system that would create a cap on emissions, give allocations to companies based on past emissions and allow firms to trade allocations to meet gradually declining emission targets. The system, similar to one being used in Europe, would have far-reaching implications for utility rates, power plant construction, energy efficiency and American automobiles.

The executives’ plan would slow the growth in greenhouse gases over the next five years, then reverse that growth and cut annual emissions by 70 percent to 90 percent of today’s levels in 15 years.

Jeffrey Immelt, chairman of General Electric, pointing to initiatives in California and a group of Northeastern states, said “this is happening already.” In addition to Immelt and Sterba, the group included the chief executives of Lehman Brothers Holdings, PG&E, Alcoa, Caterpillar, BP America, Duke Energy, DuPont and FPL Group.

Internal Rifts Cloud Democrats’ Opportunity on Warming

The House Democrats had not quite finished their “100 hours” agenda when they met in the Capitol basement Thursday morning, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) was already looking ahead. As her colleagues ate bagels and turkey sausage, she warned that their next challenge would be a lot tougher than popular issues such as student loans and ethics reforms. For her next act, she planned to take on global warming.

Democrats, she explained, had to show a sense of urgency about the carbon emissions that threaten the planet, and so she was creating a select committee on energy independence and climate change to communicate that urgency. The new committee, she said, would help the caucus speak with one voice – even if it trampled the turf of existing committees.

<snip>

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Dingell (Mich.) – the longest-serving House member and a legendary defender of his committee’s prerogatives as well as the carbon-emitting auto industry of his home state – had made it clear that he expected to lead the party’s global-warming debate in a rather leisurely fashion. Pelosi was end-running him.

<snip>

Even if Pelosi manages to finagle a bill through the House, there is the problem of the Senate, where global-warming skeptic James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) has lost his chairmanship to climate-conscious Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) but has threatened a filibuster. And President Bush seems unlikely to sign anything too far-reaching.

That is why some environmentalists want Pelosi to delay until she can send a bill to a more sympathetic president in 2009, and why some Democrats want her to delay so they can use the issue against Republicans in 2008.

“It’s a briar patch,” said one industry lobbyist. “I can understand why Pelosi wants to hold hearings to show the Democrats care, but I can’t believe she really wants to try to legislate.”

But Pelosi and her leadership team believe action will be good politics as well as policy, branding climate as a Democratic issue while showing the caucus that recalcitrant chairmen are no longer free to freelance. Pelosi had already warned Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) not to use the Judiciary Committee to try to impeach Bush, and she denied her rival Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) the gavel of the Intelligence Committee. Less than two hours after the mutinous Energy and Commerce meeting, she stood up to Dingell as well, holding a news conference to declare her select committee a done deal.

I’m with Pelosi. This is too big to be used just as a political football; we owe it to our descendants - as well as our future selves, since most of us expect to live a good while longer - to start dealing with this as soon as possible.

If the companies mentioned in the first article are willing to work in concert with Pelosi and put some serious lobbying muscle behind her efforts, then we might get a carbon cap-and-trade bill through Congress this year. If it does, that means Imhofe will have failed on, or given up on, filibustering, and hopefully Bush will realize that he’s fairly isolated on this issue and not veto.

I’m delighted to see Pelosi putting global warming on the front burner. The thought of four more years of inaction on global warming was, for me, the single most depressing aspect of Bush’s win in 2004.

[What_Exit]

Presidents State of the Union is not quite up to the challenged raised, was it?

Jim

[Fugazi]

Just wondering what’s stopping these very large corporations from reducing greenhouse gasses on their own. Why does it take an act of congress? If every very large, or even very medium corporation did something to reduce GH gasses, I’m sure it would have an impact.

Guess that’s the libertarian in me. If you see a problem, act. Don’t wait for big brother to tell you to act.

That being said, we don’t live in a libertarian society, so having congress pass some laws would be a good thing too.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Fugazi]
Just wondering what’s stopping these very large corporations from reducing greenhouse gasses on their own. Why does it take an act of congress? If every very large, or even very medium corporation did something to reduce GH gasses, I’m sure it would have an impact.
[/quote]
If Company A spends money without any (realizable) return on investment, and Company B doesn’t, which one’s strengthened, and which one’s weakened, their competitive positions?

[FRDE]

My understanding is that they are after ‘cap trading’

They scent a proven business opportunity.

I would be happier spending my taxes on /giving/ China, India et al, effective filtration systems