Keynote:
One Company's Perspective on Climate Change and Climate Science
By John L. Stowell
Vice President of Federal Affairs and Environmental Strategy, Cinergy Corporation
Nov. 14, 2005
Thank you and I appreciate your understanding that I’m here and my CEO, Jim Rogers, isn’t. Jim, for those of you who have had the opportunity to hear him, is a passionate and committed speaker on the issue of climate change. He’s also trying to put together two dynamic companies – Cinergy and Duke – and that work precludes his attendance here this morning. I will try very hard to be a worthy substitute and convey to you – in my words – why I think the work you have done and continue to do is so critical to moving the legislative ball forward on climate change.
Let me begin, if I may, to share with you the special responsibility my company has every day. I don’t do this to bore you or to suggest you feel sorry us --- I just think it’s important for you to know why we believe what we do about climate change.
Our job is to make, arguably, the most important product on earth. One only needs to look at the desperation of those still without power in the hurricane zones or see the poverty in Third World countries that don’t have it, to know that electricity is key to human progress and, in many cases, survival.
My company, Cinergy, produces electricity to serve its 1.5 million customers by combusting coal. We are the fifth largest consumer of coal, burning nearly 30 million tons of it each year in our power plants and we are one of the largest emitters of carbon dioxide in the US.
Our prices are among the lowest in the country and our regulators like it that way. In fact, while they are sensitive to the growing debate on climate and many of them are environmentalists, their first job is to keep rates under control. In the Midwest, you do that by using the most reasonably-priced and abundant fuel available ---- coal.
So here lies our challenge. We are required to produce our product as efficiently and inexpensively as possible. The retail price we can charge is regulated. Our product turns the cogs of the economy and makes a direct difference in people’s lives. We burn coal to make it happen and every indication out there is that things are going to change…dramatically.
We could have chosen to run and hide. We could have questioned the science or complained about a poorly-crafted treaty or the “stay at home” Chinese. We could be playing high-stakes rope-a-dope with the carbon issue, hoping time would make it go away.
That’s not Cinergy’s style nor will it be the style of the new Duke Energy Corp. when our merger is completed next spring. Time is NOT on our side. We need to get to work now.
Oftentimes, people are confused as to why a coal-burning utility with a high carbon profile isn’t doing everything it can to STOP greenhouse gas legislation.
Cinergy, Duke and dozens of other US utilities need to begin planning construction of the next generation of power plants. Reserve margins have fallen as the economy has improved and electric use has increased. For many of us, it’s been 20 or 30 years since we’ve built new capacity.
Key to managing our risks with a capital investment that could hit the $1 billion mark is knowing what the environmental rules of the road will be in the years to come.
If one believes as we do that carbon regulation is inevitable, we would prefer to know before we begin building, not after, what targets we need to meet and by when.
My CEO, if he were here today, would talk about the need to promote “cathedral thinking” in transitioning to a carbon-constrained world. Cathedrals were built over many decades. Those who laid the cornerstone weren’t alive to see the altar consecrated. Jim Rogers would tell you that, as in building the great cathedrals, we need to look at greenhouse gas reduction as a long-term commitment. We need to slow the growth of emissions now, freeze them at some point and then start bringing them down.
Utilities need a clear, long-term regulatory framework so we can both plan our future generation needs and have the ability to recover our costs from customers without shocking them with sudden, dramatic rate hikes.
Most importantly, we need to advance new technologies to deal with this issue. If crafted correctly, we believe a long-term carbon policy that transparently ratchets down emissions over time will result in price signals that encourage the development of new technologies.
I’m glad to be here today in a room filled with people who working to further advance the science and engage in the national conversation we need to have about climate change.
Clearly, that conversation needs to start with the science.
- What do you know?
- How certain is it?
- What will be the impacts and when will we see them?
- Is there a point of no return where atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases overwhelm the environment’s ability to cope?
- How soon before you know even more?
- And, as I’ll get back to in a minute – how are you going to communicate this knowledge?
I’m not a climate scientist and, in fact, my company doesn’t even have one on staff. I am, however, a political scientist and all the POLITICAL signs point clearly in one direction: We will eventually operate our economy and utilities will operate their power plants under the constraints of GHG regulation.
Although the political signs today are more obvious, they weren’t so some two and a half years ago when we made the internal decision to prepare for a carbon-constrained world.
In September 2003, we made the decision under the President’s Climate Leaders program to begin voluntarily reducing our GHGs to five percent below 2000 levels by early in the next decade. We were persuaded by the National Academy that the science was solid – or at least solid enough to convince us that, eventually, it would provide the cornerstone of a greenhouse gas regulatory plan.
Since that time, we believe the science has become even more certain and the signs that something is happening out there to our climate are more unsettling.
So, if we’re convinced – why aren’t others? Why do political pundits point to the scientific uncertainties that you acknowledge are still there as a pretense for failing to act? Why do websites like junk science.com go so far as to question the honesty and integrity of the scientific community doing this research?
Why does the climate change learning curve for too many Americans start with a best selling novel about sinister scientists and political axe-grinders and end with a B movie about a flash-frozen world starring Dennis Quaid?
I was on the Hill a couple of weeks ago talking to an influential staffer who told me he had read what he called a credible scientific view that warming was caused by volcanic activity miles under the oceans. If there’s a problem, he said, it was beneath us – not above us.
By the way, we did a Google search of these claims and found they’d been made by a mushroom biologist also known for questioning the well-established rules of thermodynamics. He posted his findings on several climate skeptics’ websites, which were picked up by the popular press.
My view is that you’ve won the scientific debate but haven’t yet won the public relations war. Members and staff on the Hill consistently tell me they aren’t hearing from their constituents on this issue, even in the wake of Katrina.
I also have heard the line more than once that the same scientists who now worry about global warming were talking about the coming Ice Age just 25 years ago.
And the bottom line: Debates over the uncertainty of temperature ranges, atmospheric carbon concentrations or the thawing of Siberian permafrost isn’t creating a sense of urgency in the general public. Even in the wake of the past hurricane season, the possibility that global warming contributed to storm intensity was a one- or two-day story.
So, let me put my political hat on again, not that I’ve ever taken it off. I think the scientific community needs a new communications strategy. You need to get your story out there in ways that are easily understood and are compelling to the listener.
You’ve had your story told in National Geographic, Scientific American and even in the pages of Cinergy’s 2004 annual report. But you need to get it into Redbook, People Magazine and on Nickelodeon TV.
You need to tell that story as simply and clearly as you can.
You need to educate the public that good science is always discovering more and, in doing so, may end up with as many new questions as answers.
You need to explain that the continued debate over the science is indicative of its vibrancy and will lead to a greater understanding of the risks the planet faces.
If I were you, that would be my defensive strategy. My offensive strategy would be simple: I wouldn’t let the junk science crowd get away with belittling the good science you’ve accomplished.
Tell the public what’s good peer-reviewed science and what’s just plain bogus.
Why go to the trouble? It’s a simple political formula. If you allow your opponent to run negative ads over and over again and you don’t respond, the negative ads “stick”. They become, in the eyes of the general public, the “truth” – even if they’re not.
Or, and this is probably what’s really happening, the public tunes out ---- just like we all do every October when the blizzard of political ads overwhelms and eventually numbs us.
Whether it’s apathy or confusion or both, the end result is that Congress isn’t hearing from their constituents about climate change. And until they do, the likelihood of them mustering enough votes to do something is minimalized.
Congress needs to hear from their constituents. The energy bill languished for years until gas hit $3 a gallon. Then the letters, calls and emails began rolling in and, suddenly, energy legislation was on the President’s desk.
There are leaders in Congress today ready to take climate change on. There aren’t enough of them. Science and political science need to get together to make sure there are.
Thank you.
|
CCSP Workshop, November 2005 
