US Giants Play the Green Card but Keep the Coal Fires Burning
Posted on: Sunday, 24 February 2008, 09:00 CST
By Ben Elgin
Ben Elgin reports on the companies that are backing both lower emissions and policies that will make the cuts impossible
When some of America's biggest corporations joined forces with four environmental groups last January to lobby for federal regulations to restrict greenhouse gas emissions, it was seen as a watershed. The US Climate Action Partnership (Uscap), made up of 27 companies, won praise for endorsing cuts - 10 to 30 per cent of heat- trapping emissions within 15 years and 60 to 80 per cent by 2050 - to avert some of the worst consequences of global warming.
But behind the scenes, several companies that belong to Uscap are simultaneously supporting efforts and organisations that oppose mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases or promote policies that would make the Uscap cuts nearly impossible to meet. "Many of these companies want the image of being green but are putting their money on the other side of the issue," says Frank O'Donnell, president of Washington-based Clean Air Watch.
Three high-profile Uscap members - General Electric (GE), Caterpillar and Alcoa - also sit on the board of the Center for Energy & Economic Development (Ceed), a group formed in 1992 that opposes regulations on emissions. Last April, Ceed's board unanimously signed a paper that used the word "draconian" to describe a federal climate Bill requiring a 65 per cent cut in emissions by 2050.
GE says it agrees with Ceed that coal must play a key role in the future energy mix and that it is pursuing ways to burn coal more cleanly. Caterpillar says it agrees with Ceed on most issues, except in some areas of climate policy. Alcoa says it will examine its membership of Ceed and probably withdraw. "It does not reconcile with what we're doing under Uscap," says an Alcoa spokesman.
Duke Energy, which supplies power to more than four million Americans and is the country's number three emitter of greenhouse gases, seems similarly conflicted. At the Uscap launch a year ago, Duke chief executive James Rogers endorsed the coalition's aims. "The science of climate warming is clear," he said. "We must act now."
Seven months later, Duke joined Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (Abec), a group hatched by Ceed in 2000 that advocates expanded coal use. Abec has tripled its budget this year to $35m (18m) and is mounting campaigns to support construction of coal plants in several states. In Kansas, Abec staffers went on the offensive last October after a state regulator denied a permit for two coal-generated power plants due to global warming concerns, a first in the US.
More coal-fired plants would make Uscap's proposals almost impossible to achieve, particularly its near-term goal of a 10 to 30 per cent cut in 15 years. Burning coal for electricity is already the nation's largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and the process of capturing and burying carbon dioxide, long hailed as the best solution to the problem, is at least a decade or two from widespread adoption.
"If you're serious about stopping climate change, you don't dig the hole deeper by building new coal-fired power plants," says Bruce Nilles, a director at US environmental organisation the Sierra Club.
Duke, which is building two coal plants, says it has to balance environmental concerns with growing demand for affordable energy. "We need to talk about how to build a bridge to a low-carbon world without adversely impacting certain groups of people in this country," says Mr Rogers.
Other business groups are also stepping up opposition to global warming regulations. At the end of 2007, the US Chamber of Commerce released a TV commercial that lampooned carbon reductions, depicting a family sleeping in full winter clothes, a man cooking eggs over candles, and people jogging to work in business suits, while the narrator intoned: "Climate legislation being considered by Congress could make it too expensive to heat our homes, power our lives and drive our cars."
Eight Uscap members - Chrysler, Deere, Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, GE, PepsiCo, PNM Resources and Siemens - sit on the Chamber's 113- member board.
William Kovacs, a vice-president with the organisation, says nobody has argued to change the chamber's environmental policy.
The ad campaign hit a nerve at Environmental Defense, one of the groups that helped launch Uscap. David Yarnold, executive vice- president of Environmental Defense and a communications co- ordinator for Uscap, dashed off a letter to the companies in question. "As a member of the board of the chamber, I urge you to use your influence to bring the organisation to a more productive position on this issue," But the chamber's Mr Kovacs says he hasn't felt under any pressure since.
In fact, he points out, the chamber launched a new commercial to coincide with last week's UN climate meeting in Monaco.
The ad points at the carbon-spewing travel undertaken by all of the international organisations that meet routinely to discuss global warming.
For how much longer will Uscap's true believers allow some members to play both sides? "We don't want to give members a free pass," says David Hawkins, director of the climate centre at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which belongs to Uscap. "We do expect them to exert pressure on other organisations."
(c) 2008 Independent on Sunday, The. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.
Source: Independent on Sunday, The
User Comments (0)
RSS Feeds