It sounds so simple to arrange for governmental certification of legitimate, voluntary emissions reductions. Companies that have taken (or are interested in taking) voluntary steps to reduce or sequester greenhouse gases have come to the Congress to secure legal assurance that such actions would count in the event that the U.S. decides to establish a regulatory program.
Why shouldn't the government provide a safe haven for entities that have moved forward to: improve the efficiency of generating and delivering electricity, increase the use of renewables, manage forest and crop lands in a sustainable way, or manufacture new consumer products that require less power to function?
As a general principle, not too many oppose this. But there are a few who contend that this crediting endeavor is pointless without the imposition of regulation without the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and its cap on emissions. This could not be more untrue. Just ask the leading decision makers in industry what they would pay for certainty. Legal certainty that their self-determined course to lower greenhouse gas outputs will not put their organization at a disadvantage relative to competitors who have done nothing.
I am the first to admit that there are legitimate and tough policy issues that will require work. To ensure both the environmental and economic integrity of this program, we must ensure that the government credits are issued only for verifiable actions that contribute to climate stabilization.
The alternative to this path is to do nothing. To do nothing to protect businesses, to do nothing to create incentives, to do nothing to begin dealing with what could turn out to be a substantial environmental and economic problem."