At last month's Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) annual meeting in New York which I covered on behalf of Clean Edge, I got to meet Jim Rogers. Rogers is the CEO of Duke Energy, one of the nation's largest utilities, and he's been way out front among industry executives in calling for federal government action on carbon emissions caps, once telling the Wall Street Journal: "If you're not at the table [when cap rules are written], you're going to be on the menu."

Meeting Rogers and learning that he had read and very much enjoyed The Clean Tech Revolution -- was one of many highlights of an incredible CGI experience. Three days of powerful, inspiring talks and world-changing commitments from the likes of Tony Blair, Wangari Maathai, Jane Goodall, Ted Turner, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, CEOs Lee Scott of Wal-Mart and Chad Holliday of DuPont, committed celebs like Brad Pitt and Andre Agassi -- there is nothing like it.

In relation to clean tech, one of the most powerful commitments was the pledge by Rogers and the CEOs of seven other large U.S. utilities (including Con Edison, Pepco, and Xcel) to spend an additional $500 million on energy efficiency technologies and practices over the next 10 years and to ask state regulators to decouple utility profits from electric consumption rates (as in California, the national leader in efficiency) to make efficiency more economically attractive.

The one message repeated often over three days at CGI, from business leaders, heads of state, and NGO activists was very simple: "Put a price on carbon." Another utility exec, NRG's David Crane, made this point eloquently and passionately in a recent Washington Post op-ed titled "We're Carboholics. Make us Stop." Crane opens the piece by noting that his company alone emits more greenhouse gases than Norway. "Why do we do it?...We do so because CO2 emissions are free."

The message couldn't be clearer: it is long past time for a federal cap-and-trade mandate in the United States (more politically palatable than a carbon tax). That will send a strong signal to China and India that the world's largest economy finally intends to lead on the world's most pressing global issue --infinitely better than the current U.S. federal policy of  "why should we do anything mandatory if China's emissions growth will just negate it?" approach. What kind of world leadership is that?

What struck me over those three powerful September days in New York was the wide-ranging, bipartisan global groundswell of support for meaningful, mandatory, enforceable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and the recognition that this is the right way to go for economic as well as environmental reasons. So it was even more galling and frustrating to hear President Bush, at the end of that same week in September, reject mandatory CO2 cuts in favor of a mostly unspecified path that he said "does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people."

It's the same old, tired, knee-jerk mantra we've heard for at least six years now: that mandated carbon reduction will hurt our economy. I guess that may be true if you have no faith whatsoever in the ability of your economy and its financiers to think beyond the current quarter's earnings-per-share, to rethink energy consumption models, and to develop innovative technologies. If your model of economic success is 19th century Britain, not 21st century America. Or if  "the economy" is really just a blanket phrase meaning only the less enlightened members of the coal and oil industries?

This is not a partisan issue. At CGI, Republican Governor Charlie Crist of Florida was among the most eloquent speakers calling for mandatory action. As governor of a low-lying coastal state, he knows better than anyone how economically devastating it will be to not take action--and he's also seen the financial benefits of clean technologies for Florida-based FPL Energy, the nation's largest developer of wind farms. And just this past week, Republican Senators like Elizabeth Dole, Norm Coleman, and Susan Collins pledged their support for federal cap-and-trade legislation in a bill co-sponsored by esteemed Repblican Sen. John Warner.

At the end of CGI, I was fortunate enough to shake Bill Clinton's hand and give him a copy of The Clean Tech Revolution. He thanked me and proceeded to deliver a mini-speech about the fallacy of a conflict between environmental action and economic growth. "The people putting this myth out over the airwaves don't know what they're talking about," he told me and the crowd around him.

Most of the world, including an increasing number of prominent business leaders in the U.S. and abroad, are waking up to that reality. It is long past time to act. Waiting around for a new U.S. administration in 2009, as some seem resigned to do, means at least another 15 months of delay. In that time, how many billions of dollars will not be invested in clean technologies, reforestation, critical R & D, and other key tools in the global battle against climate change? How many plans for new coal-fired plants will be drawn up? That will be a steep price to pay if we don't reject the alternative reality coming from the White House today.





link to original post