Before we explore any deep thoughts about why ConocoPhillips, BP and Caterpillar the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) (a coalition of environmental organizations and leading corporations pushing for a cap-and-trade bill to curb emissions of carbon dioxide) we might as well drill down to the basics and remind ourselves about what is Cap and Trade. Amy Goodman explains it as the issue that splits the environmental movement in half. While some say it is a way to tax polluters, generate accountability, and raise money for new technologies, other argue that it gives free permits to big polluters, fake offsets and distraction from what’s really required to tackle the climate crisis. If you want Annie Leonard's explainer video on Cap and Trade, look no further. So here is the break down: The Washington Post reports the reason as: The oil giants also want to do more to promote natural gas, which has become more abundant because of recent developments in the exploitation of shale gas and emits half as much greenhouse gas as coal does. The legislation adopted by the House included benefits for coal producers and coal-fired power plants in an effort to secure the votes of key lawmakers. Many natural gas producers think that more should be done for them. In other words, these companies are turning towards an industry that is under regulated and somehow perceived as “natural” or “environmentally friendly”. However, ask the residents who live near this form of mining natural resources about the state of cancer rates, houses blowing up, and lighting their water on fire, and you will be initiated into the world of Fracking. BP's statement alludes to that they are pulling out in part because of their deep care for the well being of their customers: BP spokesman Ronnie Chappell said, “We think the organization has accomplished what it was intended to do. It has established a broad, principle-based framework for climate-change legislation. With the completion of that blueprint, that work was done.” “We don't think legislation pending in the House or Senate conforms with the blueprint,” he added. “A disproportionate share of the cost burden falls on the transportation sector and consumers. As a result, we're going to miss out on the most cost-effective measures, and misallocation of resources could occur.” ConocaPhilips provided the following insight in their press release: “House climate legislation and Senate proposals to date have disadvantaged the transportation sector and its consumers, left domestic refineries unfairly penalized versus international competition, and ignored the critical role that natural gas can play in reducing GHG emissions,” [CEO Jim] Mulva continued. “We believe greater attention and resources need to be dedicated to reversing these missed opportunities, and our actions today are part of that effort. Addressing these issues will save thousands of American jobs, as well as create new ones.” Kate Kenny, a Caterpillar spokeswoman, said the company wants to focus on carbon capture and storage projects, such as FutureGen, an Illinois plant that is partly financed by the federal government. “We have decided to direct our resources toward the commercialization of technologies that will promote and provide sustainable development and reduce carbon emissions,” she said in an e-mail. After reading several articles on BP's website, major news sources, and conservative energy blogs, I've come to the conclusion that if you aren't on the inside track of this issue you are out of luck if you actually want to understand this manuver. So I asked one of my favorite bloggers on energy, David Roberts of Grist, to put this into context and explain what it isn't being said in the press releases.
