|
|
Enron Mail |
Attached is a first draft of a response to Greenpeace's April 5 letter to
Jeff Skilling asking for Enron's answers to some specific questions on the Kyoto Protocol and climate change. Similar letters were delivered by Greenpeace Europe in native languages to Enron's offices in the UK, Netherlands, Spain, and Belgium. I have attached a copy of one of the letters below. All the questions are the same in each. I have drafted a response with the goals of: 1) Being responsive to Greenpeace without being defensive or without "greenwashing." We have an already-published public "statement" on climate change and a very positive, solution-oriented story to tell, with many facts and accomplishments to back up our statements. I think our letter can land in the stack that they consider "positive" responses, and not in the stack of non-responses or "we don't care" responses. 2) Steering away from directly answering the no-win questions about "Kyoto." I think we can respond to the letter in a way that provides meaningful answers to the general themes of the letter. I have discussed this with many of you already, but I strongly feel that we should not get dragged down into debates over what we like/dislike, support/oppose about Kyoto....we'll quickly get into questions we can't now answer, and may never be able to answer. I'd prefer it if we rise above the politics of the issue and look solution-oriented by saying counties and companies should continue to be engaged in this important issue. 3) Developing corporate-wide messages that we can use in multiple applications -- arming our PR and govt. affairs advocates with a tight script to use in their efforts; responding to shareholder inquiries and annual meeting Q&A; Ken Lay or other executive speeches and presentations; something for our Corporate Responsibility annual report. Sorry for the long preamble, but climate change has become a very sensitive issue of late, and our message/strategy needs to be very coordinated and we need to have one clear set of statements that everyone in the company can understand and use. With that said, I also believe that these messages should be used very carefully, as the subject matter is complex and straying too far from the basics can be dangerous. We should designate one or two clear spokespeople that can answer any follow up to the Greenpeace letter by press or policymakers, and really stick to the boundaries of what's in our response letter. There is also the issue of customizing responses from the European offices, using this letter as a template and adding a few examples of Enron good deeds in the local areas. I am not opposed to doing so, but would again appreciate being able to review these responses before they go. Please let me know if you have other views. I would like to send our response by early next week, maybe even Monday 4/23 if we can turn it around that fast. Thank you for your input and assistance and I look forward to your reply. Jeff Jeffrey Keeler Director, Environmental Strategies Enron Washington DC office - (202) 466-9157 Cell Phone (203) 464-1541
|