Back To Main Page
The 2000 Elections: What's At Stake
White House Committed to "Strong Progress"
View From Captial Hill: Kyoto Is Not The Answer
The Presidential Candidates Sound Off
Americans Support Strong Action On Warming
Debating The Effects On Agriculture
Does Climate Change Cause More Extreme Weather
Advertising Information And Contributors
"Learning to Shop for Utilities" with Martha Hamilton. Online Discussion
NEI Viewpoint Discussion on Global Climate Change with Maureen T. Koetz
By Dr. E. Linn Draper, Jr.
Chairman of the Board, President and CEO
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
Climate change is a challenge facing both business and policymakers. At American Electric Power (AEP), we believe that enough is known about the potential environmental impacts of climate change for us to take actions to address the issue now. But companies such as ours should not have to worry that the voluntary actions we take today will disadvantage us tomorrow.
At AEP, we already have identified a broad array of activities across our operations to limit greenhouse gas emissions. These include taking steps to improve the efficiency of coal and hydroelectric power plants, implementing customer-based conservation efforts, increasing production from our nuclear plant and planting 15 million trees on 20,000 acres of company-owned land. In other activities, we joined with The Nature Conservancy and a Bolivian conservation organization to propose the largest carbon sequestration project in the world. This initiative will preserve 4 million acres of threatened tropical forests for 30 years.
Many Businesses Taking Initiative And AEP is not alone. Many other companies are taking similar steps. However, the problem we now face is that the next round of emission abatements will come at a significantly higher cost. This is why Congress needs to establish a legal framework to provide credit to companies that take voluntary actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with that credit reserved for the future when emission controls may be mandated by law. Otherwise, companies such as ours may not be able to justify undertaking more costly measures to reduce, avoid or sequester emissions.
The economies of the world are inextricably linked with the availability of low-cost energy supplies, primarily fossil fuels. Keeping greenhouse gas emissions at a level that would prevent dangerous, human-induced interference with the global climate system will require a revolutionary new approach to satisfying the world's hunger for energy. There is considerable merit to beginning this process now, not only as a climate change insurance policy, but also to propel our economy to greater heights.
The cumulative effect of AEP's domestic and international actions will be to avoid approximately 10 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2000. Most of the actions we take will continue to return dividends for many years to come.
Before It's Too Late
By Vicki Arroyo Cochran
Director of Policy Analysis
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
In the current policy vacuum on global climate change, responsible businesses are sent mixed messages. While the science demands immediate action, the lack of a clear policy framework makes it risky for firms to act.
Seeking to remedy the situation, voluntary "early action" legislation would encourage businesses and other entities to reduce their contributions to climate change at the earliest possible time. Legislation is needed because two international agreements related to climate change have been negotiated, but neither has yet resulted in binding international or domestic restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.
In the meantime, unprecedented amounts of long-lived greenhouse gases continue to build in our atmosphere. Every day lost creates an even greater hurdle in achieving the necessary reductions. Adding to the problem, those who identify opportunities to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions now are unsure whether future government actions will recognize these reductions. This creates the wrong incentive from an environmental standpoint--both by discouraging action in the near term and by leaving those who do something now with fewer (and more costly) options to reduce emissions down the road.
Early action legislation addresses this disincentive for action by rewarding those that act first and by creating incentives to curb emissions at the earliest opportunity.
Important Questions Remain While some of these questions are addressed in the bipartisan early action bills pending in the Senate and House, others are not resolved. Congressional action on the issue appears stalled, and crafting a sound compromise remains difficult.
In its simplest form, early action legislation could provide "baseline protection" simply by stating that actions taken after a certain year-the date of legislative enactment, for example-will not be penalized. While it would still be preferable to create true incentives for early action, taking this step now is clearly better than doing nothing at all.
The more time passes, the harder it will be for us to achieve the goal of climate stabilization. Some companies are announcing aggressive commitments to reduce their contributions to climate change. Some state and local governments are taking steps to register and promote these actions. But without U.S. government action, we will not have the broad participation and commitment-either in this country or abroad-that is needed to truly address this problem.
Yet while the principle is sound, crafting viable legislation has proven a challenge. Issues that need to be addressed in the design of such a program include: What should be the year against which emission reductions are compared? Should reductions be measured by efficiency improvements (rate of emissions per unit of output) to allow flexibility for increases in production or market share, or should only actual reductions in emissions be rewarded? And how can we encourage the greatest-and most permanent-reductions rather than reward those that are easiest to achieve?