The acknowledgment of climate change as a serious challenge by U.S. President George W. Bush was well received by world business leaders. They are calling for long-term emissions standards to be put in place to assist with planning. In his State of the Union address, Bush did not support mandatory caps on heat-trapping carbon gases, as some big U.S. companies have urged, but instead endorsed new technologies to reduce gasoline usage. While executives at the World Economic Forum in Davos welcomed the mention of alternative energies like ethanol, wind, solar, and nuclear power, they are urging the U.S. government to implement stricter emissions standards. Duke Energy CEO James Rogers emphasized the importance of having clear future regulations in place for current investment decisions, especially given that power plants being constructed now will be operational for decades. Rogers and Alain Belda emphasized the importance of being proactive and prepared for a new regulatory regime, rather than waiting on the sidelines. Belda also stressed the need for a consistent national rule on climate change, as opposed to varying regulations by individual states like California. He believes that a unified standard could help reduce risks for companies investing in emissions-cutting technologies. Additionally, Belda highlighted the potential for US leadership in reducing greenhouse gases to influence other countries to strengthen their own emissions regulations. In Japan, the head of the United Nations Climate Secretariat Yvo de Boer praised Bush's environmental messages as a positive indication that attitudes toward climate change in the U.S. are shifting. Former German environment minister Juergen Trittin also commented that the speech could lead to improved cooperation between Europe and the U.S. in addressing climate change. However, some critics felt that the speech was inadequate and came too late. Sven Teske of Greenpeace criticized the lack of a comprehensive plan and described the speech as a collection of technical suggestions without any real policy changes. Diane Wittenberg of the California Climate Registry was also disappointed by Bush's speech. She mentioned that he was always behind and never caught up, explaining that the majority of climate change leadership in the U.S. has been driven by state governments and the private sector, who are working towards influencing future environmental policies in their favor. She stated that businesses recognize that climate change will create new winners and losers in the business world, and they want to be on the winning side. A recent survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers at Davos found that 40 percent of global chief executives are worried about climate change threats, with only 18 percent in the United States sharing the same concern. Mark Spelman, head of European strategy at Accenture, suggested that the increased corporate focus on environmental issues is partly a PR move to attract environmentally conscious consumers, but also reflects a long-term strategy to mitigate future energy costs. He explained that forward-thinking CEOs can anticipate an increase in carbon prices in the future, which will impact long-term profitability, so staying ahead of the curve will benefit the company in the long run. Some people believe there is a chance for financial gain by transitioning to a cleaner or low-carbon economy. Citigroup has identified 74 companies that could profit from a move towards a more environmentally friendly global economy, such as clean energy firms, water utilities, and automobile manufacturers.