after the CNN interview...
As we said in a previous post, Kevin Vranes appeared on CNN's show In The Money Saturday, 27 January, to talk about the business and political climate for greenhouse gas regulation. Partial video link is here and a transcript of the show is also available. The Business and Media Institute (BMI) covered the segment with a lot of their own spin here.
Media pundits are beginning to converge on Vranes’ three-minute interview to argue that business is not receiving a fair shake in the discussion. The following are points that cannot fit in a brief interview on popular TV but convey the full opinion behind his statements.
It is well known that companies that extract fossil fuels -- primarily the coal and oil industries -- have questioned the science on human-caused global warming. This opposition was clearly in their business interest, and to their credit their questioning of climate change theory engendered a higher level of scientific research, analysis and discussion. Companies in these industries have also made their arguments to policy-makers outside the public discourse, behind closed doors, and for these efforts they deserve discredit.
To be sure, leaving behind convenient and ready sources of energy like coal and oil is a course that society must consider carefully. Deliberate (and some would say too-slow) consideration by the scientific community—and years of mounting evidence of the potential risk—has eliminated any significant scientific consensus opposed to the conclusion that rising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, caused primarily by human activities, is warming the global climate. That will be the message of the latest IPCC report released in two days and despite the fact that we will hear disputes about how much of a consensus the "consensus" report represents, it will indisputably represent the best consensus the scientific community can offer.
Serious scientific discussion has passed beyond this question and now concentrates on predicting the severity of climate change and the certainty of the predictions. It is fair to say that predictions range from "minimal" to "dire." In this matter it is dangerous for the scientific community to skew public discussion toward the highest severity or exaggerate the certainty of the predictions. (That was the point of Kevin's message in Eric Berger's Houston Chronicle article.)
It is important that policy-makers, both public and private, consider the entire range of possibilities and invest in appropriate levels of “insurance.” Investment in low-cost adaptations to climate change (for example directing development away from low-lying coastal areas) and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (through energy efficiency) are insurance against the more dire possibilities, and more effective if implemented early. These are key parts of a “no regrets” policy, where, regardless of the severity of climate change, the policy provides positive benefits.
Business leaders, including some in the oil and coal industries, have recognized that scientific and public opinions have coalesced and that regulations are inevitable within the planning horizon for long-term investments in R&D and infrastructure. Businesses need the government to signal the start of the race to adapt to and combat climate change. As in any free-market competition, companies win or lose based on their attributes, but society as a whole wins by unleashing innovation and pragmatic management.
No policy would direct business efforts more efficiently than a price signal on carbon emissions, via a direct tax or market-based cap-and-trade system. Mandates for certain technical solutions, for example corn-based ethanol, sound like industry favoritism from an influenced government rather than a sound direction to free enterprise. The government always creates winners and losers when it steps into the market. We would urge the federal government to step carefully and follow California's lead. Set the standard to be met, but do not specify which solutions must be used to meet the standard.
Media pundits are beginning to converge on Vranes’ three-minute interview to argue that business is not receiving a fair shake in the discussion. The following are points that cannot fit in a brief interview on popular TV but convey the full opinion behind his statements.
It is well known that companies that extract fossil fuels -- primarily the coal and oil industries -- have questioned the science on human-caused global warming. This opposition was clearly in their business interest, and to their credit their questioning of climate change theory engendered a higher level of scientific research, analysis and discussion. Companies in these industries have also made their arguments to policy-makers outside the public discourse, behind closed doors, and for these efforts they deserve discredit.
To be sure, leaving behind convenient and ready sources of energy like coal and oil is a course that society must consider carefully. Deliberate (and some would say too-slow) consideration by the scientific community—and years of mounting evidence of the potential risk—has eliminated any significant scientific consensus opposed to the conclusion that rising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, caused primarily by human activities, is warming the global climate. That will be the message of the latest IPCC report released in two days and despite the fact that we will hear disputes about how much of a consensus the "consensus" report represents, it will indisputably represent the best consensus the scientific community can offer.
Serious scientific discussion has passed beyond this question and now concentrates on predicting the severity of climate change and the certainty of the predictions. It is fair to say that predictions range from "minimal" to "dire." In this matter it is dangerous for the scientific community to skew public discussion toward the highest severity or exaggerate the certainty of the predictions. (That was the point of Kevin's message in Eric Berger's Houston Chronicle article.)
It is important that policy-makers, both public and private, consider the entire range of possibilities and invest in appropriate levels of “insurance.” Investment in low-cost adaptations to climate change (for example directing development away from low-lying coastal areas) and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (through energy efficiency) are insurance against the more dire possibilities, and more effective if implemented early. These are key parts of a “no regrets” policy, where, regardless of the severity of climate change, the policy provides positive benefits.
Business leaders, including some in the oil and coal industries, have recognized that scientific and public opinions have coalesced and that regulations are inevitable within the planning horizon for long-term investments in R&D and infrastructure. Businesses need the government to signal the start of the race to adapt to and combat climate change. As in any free-market competition, companies win or lose based on their attributes, but society as a whole wins by unleashing innovation and pragmatic management.
No policy would direct business efforts more efficiently than a price signal on carbon emissions, via a direct tax or market-based cap-and-trade system. Mandates for certain technical solutions, for example corn-based ethanol, sound like industry favoritism from an influenced government rather than a sound direction to free enterprise. The government always creates winners and losers when it steps into the market. We would urge the federal government to step carefully and follow California's lead. Set the standard to be met, but do not specify which solutions must be used to meet the standard.
posted by KPV at
10:55 AM
