Under his watch, he adds that America will continue to reject a Kyoto Protocol-style approach that forces mandatory carbon cuts because that would cost the American economy $400 billion and 4.9 million jobs over several years. While the president has been roundly criticized for his position, he is advocating the shared use of environmentally-friendly technologies such as those now being developed in the United States and involving coal gasification and carbon sequestration.

The administration has also been promoting the use of hydrogen-powered automobiles that would be clean and efficient. It is furthermore trying to advance ethanol made from wood chips and other bio-fuels as well as new energy efficient technologies. Meanwhile, Congress is looking seriously into establishing a cap-and-trade system whereby limits would be set on CO2 releases but allow utilities and other industrials to bank credits if they outperform the standards.

The perception in Europe, and among other Kyoto signatories, to the ideas presented by President Bush range from skeptical to polite, although at the G8 Summit the leaders agreed not to set any hard targets. Beyond having to rethink their mix of fuel sources, all those countries would achieve reductions through a combination of "carbon sinks" where forest and farmlands sequester gases, along with switching to green energy forms and adopting new technologies. Meantime, conservation programs and emissions trading programs are being established. The goal is to cut CO2 levels by 5 percent from 1990 levels and do so by 2012.

The United States, however, sees those goals as unreachable and impractical. Instead, it has formed the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate in coordination with South Korea and Australia as well as China and India, all to curb their greenhouse gas emissions.

"This will not be an easy problem to solve, and it will be a very expensive one," says Walter Higgins, CEO of Sierra Pacific Resources, which operates in Nevada and California, at a conference sponsored by Standard & Poor's. "If we try to do it on our own, it will probably have no effect at all. The effort must be global."

Gradual Approach

Utilities consider climate change legislation to be inevitable and have even begun to factor that probability into the cost of production. But companies are urging members of Congress to ease into the process or risk substantial economic harm.

Several utility executives who spoke at Standard & Poor's Annual Utility Conference said that addressing climate change would cost billions. That price tag would result in rate hikes that could cause a major backlash within the regulatory and investment communities. That's why policymakers, who understand that coal will remain integral to electricity generation, should gradually phase-in new rules.

"It will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and take decades to accomplish," says Thomas Farrell, CEO of Dominion Resources, regarding the efforts to curb carbon emissions. "It will have to include cars, be nationwide, and won't just hit electrical utilities. People don't want nukes, coal plants, offshore drilling, or LNG storage. Americans like it easy, but it won't be easy."

Others are less conciliatory. The Heritage Foundation says that the United States must reject binding targets on greenhouse gas emissions and instead root its objectives within the context of economic growth and poverty eradication in the developing world. The conservative think tank also says that the emphasis should be placed on the development of new technologies. And until such tools are commercialized, the approach to cutting CO2 levels must remain market-driven.

The United States is not dragging its feet, the group says, pointing to the Asia-Pacific Partnership. Under that treaty, the U.S., Australia, China, India and South Korea are trying to coordinate the creation and deployment of clean technologies. That approach is far more flexible and workable than the cap-and-trade approach, Heritage adds.

However, many major corporations favor a more aggressive public policy. Duke Energy, FPL Group, General Electric, PG&E Corporation and PNM Resources, for example, have joined to demand that government set the rules for a cap-trade-system and then let the private sector run the exchanges.

The Environmental Defense, which led this particular alliance, says that these kinds of coalitions increase the pressure on Congress and work to ensure that any plan for fixing climate change is an economic plus. Fortune 500 companies and others are endorsing "a 60 percent to 80 percent reduction in global warming pollution by 2050, the level scientists indicate that we must reach to stave off the worst impacts," adds Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress.