Une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps, mais le Président de Shell, c'est une grosse hirondelle. Les Etatsuniens fonctionnent comme d'habitude, c'est-à-dire que les états les plus progressistes finissent par passer des législations diverses et variées, ce qui pose de gros problèmes aux corporations multi-étatiques, qui se trouvent forcément confrontées à de petits concurrents qui ont la chance d'être installés dans un état à législation favorable ; à ce moment, les "multinationales" se mettent à peser sur Washington pour qu'une législation fédérale unifiée soit adoptée, remettant ainsi tout le monde à égalité.
Par ailleurs, peut-être que quelqu'un s'est rendu compte que les compagnies pétrolières étatsuniennes sont, techniquement et potentiellement, les championnes du monde du CCS, mais que ça ne va pas durer si les USA prennent du retard dans la législation.
Tout cela explique que le
President de Shell vienne de se prononcer officiellement pour une législation fédérale sur les GES, ce qui laisse envisager un premier jet dans moins de 4 ans. Rien n'indique que l'UE sera prête avant
.
L'un des sujets épineux du CCS est son statut juridique, j'y reviendrai.
Energy Companies Ready to Deal with Climate Change
26 November 2006
Washington Post. Top executives at many of the US’ largest energy companies have accepted the scientific consensus about climate change and see federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions as inevitable.
The companies have been hiring new lobbyists who they hope can help fashion a national approach that would avert a patchwork of state plans now in the works. They are also working to change some company practices in anticipation of the regulation.
...It’s Shell’s belief that we have to deal with greenhouse gases. From a Shell point of view, the debate is over. When 90-plus percent of the world’s leading figures believe that greenhouse gases have impacted the climate of the Earth, who is Shell to say to say, let’s debate the science?
...We can’t have 50 state policies on greenhouse gas emissions. We believe, Shell believes, we need a national approach to greenhouse gas management and how that would work across our industries, not only the gas and oil industry.
—John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co.
Hofmeister and other top energy company leaders back a proposal that would cap greenhouse gas emissions and allow firms to trade their quotas. Paul M. Anderson, Duke Energy’s chairman and a member of the president’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, favors a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide.
Exxon Mobil Corp., the highest-profile corporate skeptic about global warming, said in September that it was considering ending its funding of a think tank that has sought to cast doubts on climate change. And on Nov. 2, the company announced that it will contribute more than $1.25 million to a European Union study on how to store carbon dioxide in natural gas fields in the Norwegian North Sea, Algeria and Germany.
“If we had our druthers, we’d already have carbon legislation passed,” said John L. Stowell, Duke Energy’s vice president for environmental policy. “Our viewpoint is that it’s going to happen. There’s scientific evidence of climate change. We’d like to know what legislation will be put together so that, when we figure out how to increase our load, we know exactly what to expect.”
Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether the federal government is obligated to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant; its decision could force the government to come up with guidelines.
Quand on a un javelin dans la main, tous les problèmes ressemblent à un T-72.
bon, reprenons à zéro.