Go Slow To Go Fast

A few years ago, I attended a training seminar hosted by the American Management Association in which we discussed the decisions that many businesses or organizations make to “go fast to ultimately go slow” as opposed to what (in some cases) is a smarter strategy of “going slow to ultimately go fast.”

The discussion has stuck with me, and I think some of the same principles are in play as the U.S. Senate begins debate this week on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.

We’re like a lot of organizations in that we support adoption of a mandatory federal program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I’ll bet that is a position that is shared by many of you.

However, unlike some organizations (and I suspect many of you), we’re not willing to accept the first bill that comes down the pike.

The Lieberman-Warner bill is not the best bill to accomplish our common goals. While all of the pending greenhouse gas emissions bills in the Congress seek emissions reductions, some bills (and the Lieberman-Warner bill is a prime example) would increase energy costs for American families and businesses and would force Americans to rely more upon imported energy resources to meet growing energy demand.

Recent public opinion polls show that Americans support the notion of reducing greenhouse gas emissions but are concerned about how measures like the Lieberman-Warner bill would affect consumer energy costs. With all of us dealing with high gasoline prices, who could blame anybody for having reservations?

The good news is that we can reduce emissions and also work to keep energy costs affordable. The key is technology.

Advanced clean coal technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the nation’s coal-based power plants is a near-term reality. This is a fact that is not lost on many Americans, as polling shows that a significant majority of Americans believe technology will make it possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and still rely on domestic and affordable energy resources like coal.

It is clear that the Lieberman Warner-bill is not going to be enacted into law this session of Congress. The real negotiation on this issue will take place starting in 2009 when a new congress and new president begin work on a bill that I predict will be passed and signed into law.

That said, it is important that senators not take positions on this bill that will ultimately make it harder to pass a bill in the next Congress.  In other words, go slow on Lieberman-Warner and realize that the real game will begin in 2009.

Comments

[Scott Schreffler]

I have two comments and a question:
1. If clean coal is the answer, then passing the Lieberman-Warner bill would require comapnies to switch to it, rather than switching "when they feel like it."
2. The real costs of coal are passed on to everyone in the form of health problems and global warming. A study by the British government has concluded it will cost us 5 times as much NOT to change from high-emitters such as coal than it would cost if we switched now.

Are consumers capable of such vision?

[Carlos Ober]

Any cap and trade bill, which is the only way to go, is absolutely necessary to provide an economic framework for utilities to proceed with the use of clean coal technology and retrofit old plants, and is going to mean higher electricity bills. However, it will also encourage the use of domestic coal resources of which we have 200 years supply. Coal fired power plants are the largest stationary source at 31% of our CO2 emissions. We are living off of growth in demand for electricity being supplied by the highest cost domestic source of peaking capacity, natural gas. As we inevitably run short of it, we will have to import more LNG competing with China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Europe. Those countries are now willing to buy gas at oil-equivalent prices. We have to move quickly to avoid this idiocy. We are not far from demonstrating that it is possible to retrofit older coal plants using pure oxygen burn at the front end or anhydrous ammonia at the stack. All of these have a cost that ultimately the consumers would bear. Fighting the Lieberman bill is simply sticking our heads in the sand! Furthermore, the building of base load clean coal base load power plants will allow the use of electric hybrids that can use off peak power at night to charge. This will help eliminate another major source of CO2. Don't delay this legislation fearing the cost, because the costs, both financial and environmental, will be that much higher the longer we wait.

[Kathy Grove]

Until we we accept that we alone are accountable, there will continue to be a "crisis", wether in energy, housing, food availability, etc.

As individuals, so many have lost sight of their strength, power, and accountability. Until people (me included) take their lives back, the lives that they gave away all by themselves, turn off the tv, the lights, consolidate driving, and so many other conservation friendly practices; until we are doing EVERYTHING we can to make a difference, no one has even the right to complain about the use of coal, petrolium, or any other source of energy that leaves ruines in it's wake.

[Bob D]

"Man Made" global warming is a hoax - plain and simple. The earth's temperature swings all by itself - no assistance from man is necessary. 20 years from now people will remember the global warming fad and laugh. Burn coal, drill everywhere for oil, tap the massive shale deposits right beneath our feet. A growing economy needs fuel. Let's stop sending Trillions to countries that would do us harm and invest that money right here at home.