Great question. I and many others in my office shared the same concerns when we read this blog post. I feel that it may be irresponsible for our company to blog in support of one of the most controversial and all-encompassing legislative measures to ever pass through Congress. Maybe a more effective and thought out approach would be to support only certain parts of the bill that affect the company’s operations. I believe that NEI took this approach. By supporting this bill in its entirety, AREVA has chosen to also support the adverse affects the bill has on its employees in the form of higher energy bills. I hope that AREVA will be more careful in the future if and when they again choose to openly support such legislation.

Best,
Joseph

Thank you for your concise and passionate response to the article titled “AREVA supports Climate Legislation to Encourage More Green Energy Production”. Please allow me to assuage your concerns about the direction of AREVA regarding climate change.

As we all know, AREVA’s strategy is “to be a global leader in solutions for CO2-free power generation and electricity transmission and distribution” and – as any other company – the Group’s main objective is to grow profitably in a manner that aligns with the interests of the company and its stakeholders.

The stimulus package and other US administration initiatives address CO2-free energy and energy efficiency. Moreover, in the long term, the US administration will probably continue to invest heavily in these fields. Being a leader in our market requires us to pursue all opportunities. In the same way, industry players like GE and Duke Energy are clearly dedicated to this market and have taken major initiatives in this regard.

Additionally, there is a continuous increase in the number of high level scientists who agree that climate change is indeed occurring and is anthropogenic in origin. For the Group, being responsible for stakeholders is also taking into account those growing number of opinions.

Thank you for your engaging and thoughtful inquiry.

Sincerely,

Regis HASLE
AREVA Vice President for Climate Change Strategy

Have we thoroughly weighed the effects of supporting climate change/global warming? Considering the blog post on June 26th and the media reports that climate change/global warming may be a political agenda only, do we fear that the image of AREVA could be damaged? Have we considered the opinions of most of the employees that work for the company? At what point does business ethics take over our zest to build new plants? Can we ethically, being a technical, scientific company, support agendas that are not scientifically proven (known fact) for favorable conditions to build our plants? In an industry where public perception is very vital, are we willing to risk a tarnished public opinion for short term gain? There are many advantages to using our technology, why not promote those and stay out of a political game?

I don’t feel as if the AREVA blog and the new direction of company in their environmental and political messaging is an accurate reflection of the feelings of the people who work for AREVA in the United States (at least in my office). Have you considered the cost of the loss of morale or trust of your employees? I know personally, I am very upset and uneasy with what I am seeing, and I no longer proudly state I work for AREVA. On the contrary , I feel as if I should put a statement on my social networking sites that I don’t agree with the direction my company is taking. I would like to see a post addressing the articles listed below that were released yesterday. Let’s be as transparent as we promote and promise.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5117890.shtml
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/

Thank You