Introductory Remarks by Deputy Chief of Mission Jim Moore to the American Chamber of Commerce Forum on  “Good for your Business, Good for the Environment”

May 6, 2008, Colombo

Good morning ladies and gentleman,

I would like to thank Gordon Glick for asking me to welcome you this morning.  The American Chamber of Commerce is a dynamic group, and is one of, if not the, strongest bilateral chambers in the country.  The Embassy is proud of the job they are doing and pleased to have an active, ongoing relationship with the chamber. 

Today you will be discussing how “green” practices can be best used to drive business strategy and create competitive advantage.  It is a tremendously important topic, and will continue to be for the rest of our lives.  So we salute your active interest in it and your presence here today.

It is a subject the United States has been dealing with for many years.  Gordon asked if I would speak to you briefly this morning about U.S. environmental policy and some of our recent initiatives, and I’m happy to do that.

Climate change – or global warming – is a core issue in this discussion.  Many have criticized the government of the United States for not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.  There is considerable debate as to why the U.S. did not ratify the protocol.  To put it most simply, the United States did not ratify Kyoto because it would have harmed the U.S. economy, and because it did not include reductions in emissions by developing countries.

Let me illustrate what I mean: 

• For the U.S. to fulfill Kyoto, we would have had to mandate reductions equal to one-third of our energy economy in less than a decade, requiring draconian measures at a huge economic cost -- projected at $400 billion annually and the likely loss of 4.9 million jobs.  Many energy-intensive industries would almost certainly have moved overseas – ironically, they would have gone primarily to developing countries, causing global carbon emissions to actually increase due to less efficient industry practices and lower environmental standards in those countries.  The experiences of many Kyoto signatory countries struggling to meet their targets bear out how unrealistic such a commitment would have been.
  
  
• Moreover, U.S. reductions - no matter how costly – would be largely negated by developing country emissions growth, which is occurring at a rate twice that of developed countries.  Costly targets would promote migration of energy-intensive industry and jobs to countries that are not bound by the Kyoto Protocol, further exacerbating the problem.  Developing countries' emissions are forecast to surpass those of developed countries by 2010, just as China's emissions have already surpassed those of the United States.

Over the past several years, the U.S. Government has endeavored to take a pragmatic, balanced approach to the challenge of climate change.  In 2002, President Bush formulated a path for the United States to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions.

• That year, he announced the first step:  to reduce America's greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent through 2012.  Today, we remain on track to meet this goal even as our economy has grown 17 percent.  
• In 2006, the U.S. actually had a net decrease in emissions.    
• Importantly, since 2001, President Bush has requested, and Congress has appropriated, 45 billion dollars for climate-related science, technology, observations systems, international assistance, and tax incentive programs.

Earlier this month, the Administration announced the next step – a new national goal to stop the growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025.  The growth in emissions will slow over the next decade, stop by 2025, and begin to reverse thereafter, as long as technology continues to advance.

To achieve this goal we are going to accelerate and expand on our prior efforts with a wide range of recently enacted mandatory programs, incentives, and technology partnerships.  A few months ago, the U.S. Congress passed new energy legislation to improve vehicle fuel economy and increase the use of alternative fuels.

The so-called Renewable Fuels Mandate will increase the use of renewable fuels by 500 percent – requiring fuel producers to supply at least 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel in the year 2022.

The Vehicle Fuel Economy Mandate specifies a mandatory national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, which will increase efficiency by 40 percent and save billions of gallons of fuel.

In addition, a new lighting efficiency mandate will generate a 25 to 30 percent improvement by 2012-2014 and 70 percent by 2020.

A new federal government operations mandate will reduce the energy consumption of U.S. federal government facilities 30 percent by 2015, increase renewable fuel use by 20 percent, and make all new federal buildings carbon-neutral by 2030.  Taken together, these and other important actions will prevent billions of metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere.

The U.S. is working internationally as well to address climate change.  As part of discussions taking place under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, President Bush brought together leaders from the world’s major economies to develop a way forward on energy security and climate change issues after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.  The 17 countries represented are among the largest energy users and emitters of greenhouse gas emissions.

The group is discussing a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases and debating how nationally defined strategies to promote energy security can be reflected in a new agreement.  The group is also looking at immediate steps to address emissions from sectors such as power generation, transportation, and aluminum and steel manufacturing.  It is searching for ways to finance clean energy technologies and to eliminate tariffs and other barriers to global investments in these technologies.  The leaders of the countries represented in the group are expected to meet this summer to finalize their recommendations.

To foster a truly sustainable global approach to climate change, the United States believes that international climate actions must accommodate diverse national circumstances and approaches.  Climate actions should be considered in tandem with economic as well as other sustainable development goals.

The United States is taking a leadership role in implementing international public-private partnerships and conducting cutting-edge science and technology research.  Between 2003 and 2006, the U.S. Government committed nearly $3 billion annually – more than any other country in the world – to climate change technology research and deployment programs.

So, that is some background on what the U.S. government is doing in the area of climate change.  Let me say just a few words about what some American business is doing. 

Many U.S. companies are embracing green technology.  They feel that “going” green is a viable way to improve their business, as they look to cut costs, protect the environment, and gain a competitive advantage over other, less “green” companies.

Companies are taking “green building” and alternative energy sources – and the subsequent savings they can realize from decreased use of energy and natural resources – very seriously.  This can mean anything from adopting power-saving measures to literally building a better building. 

Citigroup is saving nearly $100 million annually in energy costs by implementing simple measures such as turning off escalators when not in use and redesigning banks to include more natural lighting and recycled materials. 

U.S. retail giants such as WalMart, Target, Starbucks and Best Buy are building prototype green-building stores.  Best Buy – which is one of the largest suppliers of consumer electronics in the U.S. – has committed to build only certified eco-friendly stores in the future. 

Some companies are finding less expensive ways to incorporate green energy.  One American snack-food producer has installed 18 wind turbines in the roof of its production facility.  Many companies are installing solar panels on open roof spaces and parking areas. 

U.S. companies have realized that going green is good for sales, and consumers are increasingly aware that their consumption affects the environment.  They are demanding that companies produce goods in a manner that has minimal, if any, negative impact on the environment.  Many Americans are looking for products that use less energy or come from a company that is environmentally friendly.  

And it is not just companies that are investing in energy saving technology to save money and reduce their carbon footprints.

Our own embassy here in Colombo recently installed high-efficiency light bulbs in the homes of our staff.  These bulbs use only 10% of the energy that a normal light requires.  We’ve also reduced the energy consumption of the embassy itself by 30% within just the last six months by improving the electrical system and air conditioners, and by installing motion sensors that turn off lights in certain areas when no one is in the room.

Thankfully, technology continues to move forward to provide both companies and consumers with better green options.  As you proceed through your discussions today, you will share innovative ideas with one another, and explore ways that we all can help make our planet a healthier place for future generations.

Building your businesses while protecting the environment is an enormously important challenge, and we are pleased that American Chamber of Commerce has done its part by providing this forum for discussion and debate.

Thank you very much.