Kevin Vranes has a phud in Physical Ocean- ography and Cli- matology. He now studies sci- ence policy and politics at the [NB: Yes, I am still going to post my "controversial" climate science article coming out of AGU, along with some other thoughts. Please bear with....I'm still recovering from the week that was and I didn't get home until last night.]
As for the subject of this post, who said it and when? None other than the CEO of Duke Energy, James Rogers, in the Dec 12 NY Times.
"Climate change is real, and we clearly believe we are on a route to mandatory controls on carbon dioxide," Mr. Rogers said. "And we need to start now because the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive this is going to be."Global warming is not only an environmental hazard, but also a great challenge for economic policy. Without economic incentives, analysts say, the needed investments in industrial cleanup, innovative low-carbon technologies, fuel-efficient cars and other ways of reducing energy waste will not occur.
Mr. Rogers's stance is far from universal within the power industry, but it has surprising support, particularly from those, like him, who also produce electricity from carbon-free nuclear reactors.
What does this mean? It is further evidence that the train is leaving the station and that the smart ones are jumping on early before that thing is running fast. It also means Congress is even more likely to pass something significant on GHGs in the 110th session (with or without a veto threat). With that veto looming, though, let's expect something in the 111th session.
Comments
# 1 | Brian S. | December 20, 2006 11:06 AM
Call me a cynical-yet-innocent lamb, but I'm not sure Rogers did this for smart-money reasons. I think the profit-maximizing position would be to continue to fight regulation as hard as possible, maybe delay it a year or three.
My lamblike view is that even high up in oil companies, there are many people who will not go past a certain level of dishonesty, and denialism has now exceeded Rogers' tolerance level.
# 2 | kevin v | December 20, 2006 2:35 PM
Brian, you might be right, but I think there is a huge big-money reason to want to bring on climate change regs. Businesses want to do long-term planning and I think energy-intensive businesses feel hemmed in by the uncertainty of what GHG regs are going to look like. Once they're in place then long-range planning can go forward (I've heard it said that 15 years is a minimum window that they want for regulatory certainty). So if you think regs are definitely coming, then you want them sooner than later so you can get on with it.
# 3 | bigTom | December 20, 2006 9:21 PM
I think Kevin is right. Of course the industrialist would like his current projects grandfathered in with the old regs. That way he suffers no disruption in his plans. I'm sure Rogers doesn't want us to say, after next week all new (or worse existing also) plants will have to comply with the new limits you are going to see first right now!
# 4 | Tim Clear | December 28, 2006 12:39 PM
There's no reason a big carbon producer couldn't get into the carbon trading scams - their infrastructure would seem to be lined up for that already.
# 5 | GMB | December 29, 2006 9:04 PM
You ought to have a reason for all this.
So far none of you have the slightest skintilla of a justification for imposing even $1 of costs on CO2-emitters. Not a single dollar.
So lets all stop this talking AROUND the subject and lets come up with some actual evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.
By the way, as you all know, there is plenty of evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global COOLING.
But not even the slightest evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.
If I'm wrong lets see it!
You Annan. Speak up. Where is your evidence?
Don't you all know how ridiculous all of you are being? Nothing in the medieval world compares to this. This is the greatest example of Wrong-Way Corriganism ever perpetrated.
Its disgusting is what it is.
# 6 | visigothkhan | January 3, 2007 11:30 AM
Well its just bloody stupid. And testimony to what one can acheive by bludgeoning people with lies round the clock.
But its still vey hard to understand the motive?
# 7 | Tim Clear | January 3, 2007 1:29 PM
Money, of course is the motive. Carbon trading. Another paycheck.