Chrysler and Ford join the US Climate Air Partnership
The statement of purpose on the US Climate Air Partnership's website banner reads a little like fantasy: "We are committed to a pathway that will slow, stop and reverse the growth of U.S. emissions while expanding the U.S. economy." That is not an impossible goal, certainly, but it's going to take a while to come true.So it's good to see more companies get behind USCAP's stated mission, and today, Ford and Chrysler announced they're joining up. The USCAP loves releasing information via PDF, and if you'd like to read their Call To Action, it's available here (PDF). In it, the organization details how they think companies should interact with politicians and the environment, which revolves around capping and trading greenhouse gases (and notice how USCAP contains "cap"):
- The most efficient and powerful way to stimulate private investment in research, development, and deployment is to adopt policies establishing a market value for GHG emissions over the long-term. Where near-term price signals are insufficient to deploy cleaner existing technologies, additional incentives or other measures must be considered, especially where carbon emissions could be significantly reduced and the "lock-in" of future carbon emissions avoided. Rapid advancement and deployment of new, breakthrough technologies are also core elements of any climate change solution. Thus, an effective climate change program must include policies to promote significant research, development and deployment of hyper-efficient end use technologies; low-or zero-GHG emitting technologies; and cost-effective carbon capture and storage, which will be particularly important in the deployment of advanced coal technologies.
Other USCAP members include BP, ConocoPhillips and Shell. GM joined in May. You can read the announcement of Ford and Chrysler joining here (PDF).
[Source: USCAP via Green Car Congress]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Chris M 6:52PM (6/27/2007)
The goal of this group is to get more government subsidies for research that might never go anywhere or do anything (like hydrogen?), and to get subsidies to sell more expensive (and more profitable) "green" products.
Reply