Kudos to you, Grist, for this interview. How interesting to read the thoughts of someone who isn't clearly on one side or other of the green fence. It drives me batty when fellow tree-huggers (or gas guzzlers, for that matter) treat environmental and development issues simplistically and assume that anyone -- particularly any businessman -- must be either good or evil. Clearly Jim Rodgers is a conscientious citizen who is willing to listen and willing to change  his mind. More of us should follow his example, on any issue.

I'm especially pleased that you've published this interview at a time when Duke Power seems so greenly evil. All caveats aside, it's good for us all to have a reminder that if (power) companies are doing things we disagree with, it is because we have yet to help create the economic context that allows them to competitively uphold the (green, just) values we judge them against. Onward, Congress. Some business leaders like Mr. Rodgers are taking their own initiative, but we should encourage it.

I think its admirable that major stakeholders are working toward positive change in energy use. This article highlights how when executives grasp the implications of being proactive, their companies and the environment can reap positive results. This article also recognizes that huge reductions in CO2 emissions and other environmental issues won't happen overnight because of industries which have been built up around the problem. This is a step in the right direction, but more companies need to become as proactive and even moreso to have more far-reaching, positive results. British Petroleum (BP) is another company which is also making strides to treat the environment better. We all benefit from raising energy awareness and making choices that reflect our own environmental conservation principles.

Down here where the policies of Duke Energy meet reality, Rogers is known for his spin & green-washing. He pushed hard for two new coal plants while belittling energy efficiency. Then he had the brass balls to ask that his coal plants be exempt from carbon caps while he was simultaneously getting glowing publicity on NPR and elsewhere for championing carbon caps. It's disappointing when a hypocrite like Rogers is allowed to successfully spin his way into being considered a "leader" by Grist readers.

Surprisingly not mentioned here is the positive value of regulation to the businesses being regulated. A major function of carbon emission regulation is to establish a level playing field so that the company that wants to do the right thing does not put itself out of business in the process and thus cede the territory to its less-responsible competitors. Ethics aside, Rogers' pro-active stance here speaks to his intelligence as a manager, and I'd rather that corporations of Duke's significance were run by smart people than dumb ones. Lord knows there's plenty of indication of the latter in American industry.

I was in Houston a few weeks ago at the CERAWeek international conference (totally focused on large energy issues, with many energy CEOs attending). It was absolutely amazing to see the almost complete recognition of climate change as a now irrefutable issue that must be responsibly addressed by leaders of industry. Everyone had piled onto the bandwagon. I think this has everything to do with public interest, including children's, and potential consumer response to the crisis nature of the issue. I'm willing to give Rogers a chance to prove that he has changed his spots, knowing how difficult that is for any industry leader.

I'd like to read some comments from the well-informed members of Grist about nuclear power. It's touched on in the Rogers interview. For some time now, my thinking is that I am clearly in favor of building nuclear power plants given that: A) Sharp reductions in greenhouse-gas emmissions have to happen NOW, if they are to have any meaningful impact. In fact, the complete elimination of fossil fuel use should be an urgent priority for the entire planet Essentially, the bell may have already tolled
B)Nuclear power is dangerous, but it's clean with regard to energy production C)Efforts at energy efficiency and alternative fuels are gaining some momentum, but, with zero serious political leadership around the issues, the changes will be slow and modest.
I understand there are concerns with meltdowns, transportaion of radioactive fuel and storage of fuel. Frankly, I think we'll just have to live with that. Sadly, at this highly critical stage, nuclear energy may be required as a key segment of a cleaner-energy grid.

phillip in NC

So Mr. Roger's on the HotSeat, having graduated from Cinergy to the Big Duke - but he is getting paid well to DoTheRightThing.  One problem that he need to solve, now that he is in the Carolinas is the solvable problem of their gigantic Hog Farm Wastes! (there are more colorful phrases, of course).

Carolina residents and the hog industry have done nothing to relieve this major pollution problem, and there are no laws (how about that!) to control animal wastes. The volume of hog wastes is hugely greater than human wastes.

Periodically, those waste lagoons are flushed into the rivers when there are heavy rains, (hey, Act of God!) so the folks can simply shrug off the problem.

Mr. Rogers can apply the expertise of Duke Energy to trap the hog-waste methane, and to recover the solids, and convert both to energy.