The pending senate vote on the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill is producing outpour of support as well as disapproval across the board.
According to ICIS News (I apologize for those who don’t have the subscription for the service) , President Bush reportedly warned the Congress on the potential costs of the bill on the US economy and ultimately to consumers. Bush said he would veto the measure.
The US chemical industry is generally opposed to the bill. Check out this recent interview of the American Chemistry Council’s Jack Gerard regarding his take on the pending policy.
Charles Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, also explains in this interview why he believes the price of gas will likely go up if the bill passes.
The Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA) released their opinion yesterday stating that they are evaluating the debate but remained concern on the bill’s potential financial toll on the specialty batch and custom chemical manufacturing industry.
In a new Policy Outlook from the George C. Marshall Institute, author Donn Dears reported on the folly of the bill saying that the US do not yet have the necessary proven technologies to dramatically cut CO2 emissions.
“Forging ahead without the needed technologies will cause severe economic harm by cutting our supply of electricity and reducing America’s standard of living.”
On the other side, several companies and most public advocates are urging on the the passing of the bill. Corporations such as Allianz of America; Catalyst Paper Corporation; FPL Group, Inc.; JohnsonDiversey, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Levi Strauss & Co.; National Grid; Nike, Inc.; Novo Nordisk; Tetra Pak; and Xanterra Parks & Resorts sent a letter yesterday to the Senate stating an urgent need for a regulatory framework to address climate change.
Accenture released a study last month reporting that more than three-quarters of companies they interviewed in the chemical, energy and natural resources industries worldwide are looking to policy makers to set a framework that supports technology innovation and lays out global emission targets and efficiency standards.
“Another key finding is that most respondents view climate change primarily as a risk factor. 56 percent said they regard climate change more as a risk than as a business opportunity while 15 percent said they consider climate change only as a risk, with no related opportunities.”
Some of these companies may not see any opportunities or profits regarding climate change but several analysts viewing the global carbon market is stating otherwise. Stay tune for the next post talking more about the good, the bad and the money involved in dealing with the carbon market.