At the rate Obama is going, he could well be a one term president as the economy crashes down around his inept economic policies.

If this be the case, we could see a fairly direct "about face" of many of these carbon taxes and legislations by the next government. They would be deemed too expensive and onerous for U.S. businesses right now.

It would be in company's best interests to take a "wait and see" approach.

Any legislation is likely to create higher taxes and more paperwork, so very few companies would be "chomping at the bit" to face up to those realities.

Very few carbon initiatives would make economic sense unless it helps to increase company market share and profit. I see very little anecdotal evidence of this.

On the contrary - adopting carbon initiatives early, like investing in renewable energy and calculating your GHG footprint - is the best way to reduce administrative burden.

Companies that jump on the climate change bandwagon early have the advantage. They can devote time, resources, and budget to the problem gradually, instead of all at once when carbon legislation come down the pike.

The new EPA proposed rule to have large emitters report their GHG footprint annually is a perfect example. EPA set the threshold for reporting at 25,000 mt CO2e. But only companies who have already been actively engaged in carbon reporting are able to easily assess whether or not their emissions fall above or below this threshold.

Not to mention that these early movers, such as those companies participating in EPA Climate Leaders, will be able to draw up on past data and experience for the reporting itself. Taking a "wait and see" approach is actually the best way to make this process cost as much and be as onerous as possible.

Sarah Smith
Environmental Affairs Specialist
BeGreen, a division of Green Mountain Energy
http://www.begreennow.com