Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Exxon Free Environmental Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (4406)	10/14/2009 6:12:34 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 49035

Exelon CEO Says Cap-and-Trade Approach to Carbon Emissions is Best for Economy Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:13am EDT John Rowe urges businesses to come together to support federal climate legislation CHICAGO--(Business Wire)-- Exelon Chairman and CEO John W. Rowe said yesterday that cap-and-trade is the best approach for addressing global warming while sustaining an economic recovery. In a keynote address at the PennFuture Southeast Global Warming Conference in Penn Valley, Pa., Rowe said reducing carbon emissions will cost money, but the alternatives to cap-and-trade will cost more. "The best way to address the climate problem and protect our nation`s fragile economic recovery is through cap-and-trade, which is the least expensive solution," Rowe said. "Prices will go up, just not as much as with cruder tools. Plus, the legislation has provisions that will help reduce the impact to consumers." Rowe said that options like new nuclear plants, wind and solar, while appealing to many, actually cost much more than commonplace solutions like energy efficiency. "Choosing more expensive options over cheaper ones adds costs that are passed through to businesses and consumers," Rowe said. "That`s why we need a climate bill that takes advantage of the power of appropriately regulated and monitored markets, which will drive competition, innovation and low-cost solutions." In the wake of Exelon`s decision to withdraw from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce due to a disagreement on the urgency of addressing global warming, Rowe urged the nation`s business community to come together in support of climate legislation. "Companies and business groups must recognize the need for strong action-or they will be left behind," said Rowe. "We have faith in the ability of American business to come together to develop innovative and cost-effective solutions to the climate challenge." Exelon is not waiting for climate legislation to undertake its own effort to address climate change through Exelon 2020, an environmental and business strategy to reduce, offset or displace more than 15 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year by 2020. In April 2009, Exelon announced that it had reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by more than 35 percent from 2001 to 2008. Rowe is the electricity industry`s longest-serving chief executive, with nearly 26 years as a utility CEO. Rowe was among the first CEOs in the industry to focus on climate change, first testifying before Congress on the potential effects of carbon emissions in 1992. He currently serves as co-chair of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy, and previously chaired the Edison Electric Institute and the Nuclear Energy Institute. Rowe`s speech was part of an event sponsored by PennFuture, a leading environmental advocacy organization in Pennsylvania. Presenters included Jerry Melillo, co-chair of the United States Global Climate Change Impacts Assessment, and co-director and senior scientist of The Ecosystems Center at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole; Richard Foltin, legislative director, American Jewish Committee; Brent Alderfer, president of Community Energy Inc.; Denis O`Brien, PECO president and CEO; Joy Bergey, federal programs manager, PennFuture; and Jan Jarrett, PennFuture president and CEO. Rowe`s prepared remarks are available on the Exelon Web site at: www.exeloncorp.com/aboutus/speakersbureau. Exelon Corporation is one of the nation`s largest electric utilities with approximately $19 billion in annual revenues. The company has one of the industry`s largest portfolios of electricity generation capacity, with a nationwide reach and strong positions in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. Exelon distributes electricity to approximately 5.4 million customers in northern Illinois and southeastern Pennsylvania and natural gas to approximately 485,000 customers in the Philadelphia area. Exelon is headquartered in Chicago and trades on the NYSE under the ticker EXC. reuters.com

To: Sam who wrote (4406)	10/15/2009 11:27:22 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 49035

Chutzpah is a word that works :>) Striving for No’ in Climate Talks By Andrew C. Revkin UNFCCC Amid the throngs at climate talks, as shown in Bali here in 2007, officials from individual countries can make a big difference. Saudi Arabia has been pinpointed as an influential player. In doing my reporting for the story in The New York Times today on Saudi Arabia’s latest maneuvers in climate treaty talks (they are reviving longstanding demands for compensation for lost oil revenue), I found an interesting paper on the oil kingdom’s involvement in climate talks by Joanna Depledge, a research fellow at Cambridge University focusing on climate negotiations. The paper, “Striving for No: Saudi Arabia in the Climate Change Regime,” was published last November in the journal Global Environmental Politics. It is the most comprehensive analysis I’ve seen of the role that Saudi Arabia and other oil exporters have played through two decades of global climate diplomacy. Dr. Depledge’s conclusion is that this is a classic case of parties – in this case Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich states – getting involved in a process primarily to obstruct it. She concludes by noting hints that the oil powers appear to be shifting these days to a more constructive role. But many observers and participants in the interim climate talks that concluded in Bangkok last week saw scant signs of a cooperative approach. And the e-mail and statements from Saudi officials that Jad Mouawad and I cited in our article appear to display a willingness by Saudi Arabia to impede a deal in Copenhagen if it does not include concrete commitments of aid and investment to offset anticipated drop in oil flows as countries try to cut emissions. In an e-mail message to me, Dr. Depledge warned that Saudi Arabia and its lead official on climate, Mohammad al-Sabban, should not be underestimated as they pushed for financial commitments. “I am absolutely sure that getting something on this will be a deal-breaker/maker for them,” she wrote. “They are quite blunt about it. It is the strategy they have followed since 1991.” Dr. Depledge said she was hoping “that getting something on investment” in carbon capture and storage would “provide a win-win way of getting them on board.” “Al-Sabban is the most skillful and experienced negotiator in the process,” she continued. “Others ignore him at their peril.” Access to the paper requires a subscription, so I will summarize its main points below. Here’s part of the abstract: A key starting point for the conduct of global negotiations under the U.N. system is that delegations are actively seeking an agreement that will meaningfully address the problem at hand. Sometimes, however, negotiations must contend with cases of obstructionism, that is, negotiators who are at the table with the aim of preventing an agreement. Given that they face no imperative of striking a deal, governments for whom “no” is the preferred outcome can have a disproportionately high impact on the negotiations, not only by formally blocking agreements, but on a day-to-day basis by slowing down progress or souring the atmosphere. This article examines Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the climate change regime, and argues that the delegation has long played the role of obstructionist. Dr. Depledge notes that Saudi Arabia and many other oil-exporting states only joined the Kyoto Protocol once it became clear it was going to take effect. “Saudi Arabia acceded in time to ensure that it would become a party — and therefore able to fully influence proceedings,” she wrote. She described a significant contrast between the stances of Saudi Arabia and another developing country exporting fossil fuels — in this case South Africa and its coal: Although the South African economy is more diversified than that of Saudi Arabia, it is still highly dependent on the coal sector. South Africa is the world’s second-largest coal exporter, with developed countries accounting for 80 percent of its coal exports. South Africa is much poorer than Saudi Arabia, and coal is more vulnerable to climate policy than oil, given its higher carbon content and the greater availability of alternatives. South Africa, however, has adopted a more balanced view of the risks posed by climate change and mitigation measures, translating into a far more constructive role in the negotiations. Saudi Arabia has simply sought to prevent or slow down progress, either on the general thrust of the negotiations or on specific agenda items. Dr. Depledge described signs of a shift in the oil kingdom’s stance, including its endorsement of science pointing to big impacts from a building human influence on climate and commitment of money to pursue technologies for capturing carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and other new energy options. But her conclusion was still cautionary: The question is whether, and if so how, these developments will eventually feed through to changes in the Saudi delegation’s approach to the negotiations themselves, especially leading up to the landmark Copenhagen meeting in December 2009. For now (up to the June 2008 sessions), any signs of a softening in the Saudi negotiating position remained well hidden. dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com