REGULATE ME, PLEASE: GLOBAL FIRMS WANT GLOBAL CLIMATE REGS
Topic: Part of the Solution, The Forum, Environment30. November 2007 |
Print This Post
|
Email This Post
|
Once again, business is calling for government to do more — this time on a global level. In a 2-page advertisement in the Financial Times, 150 global corporations including Coca-Cola, Nike, Shell, and General Electric have called for decisive government action around the world to stave off the threat of climate change.
Juliet Eilperin writes in the Washington Post that large private companies teamed up with environmental organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council to highlight a report from McKinsey & Co. The report describes 250 possible measures that could actually reduce global CO2 output compared to present levels, from energy and fuel efficiency to better building practices and carbon sinks (essentially, more forests).
It’s a bit odd when companies call for government to start minding their business. But it makes sense: severe climate change will be disruptive to economies around the world in incalculable ways. The communique says that "tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy," leaving the public interest a faint echo. But companies know that unless the rules apply to everyone, many firms will ignore the need to change industrial practices and maintain profits. The Post’s Eilperin notes that "business executives . . .said that voluntary measures are not adequate."
These firms also know the importance of forecasting, because they do it all the time. Thus, the communique notes that unless action is taken immediately, the world will have to do more later, at greater expense. And there’s an incentive: the "shift to a low-carbon economy will create significant business opportunities."
Finally, the business and NGO leaders hit a note that an accountant could love: cost containment. "The costs of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . . . are manageable, especially if guided by a common international vision."
Growing by shrinking. Profiting by changing direction. Working together to keep costs down. Isn’t this a vision government can embrace?
Ned Hodgman
understandinggov.org
Well, of course! Ultimately self-interest is a strong– if not the strongest– motivator. Now what’s needed is government incentives for private business to do what it should want to be doing anyway. The NRDC report isn’t “pie in the sky;” it’s a list of practical interventions that should make sense to everyone. Now the need is for these interventions to be rewarded concretely-enough for everyone to undertake the needed changes.
comment at 30. November 2007
Thank you for your comment. What is also remarkable is the growing push — on the state level, on the federal level, and now internationally — for government(s) to take action on climate change. This push is coming from state governments, from companies, and now from large multinational corporations. Yes, they have their selfish economic interests at heart, but if they protect them, they also protect the world economy. One item just for the record — the report was published by McKinsey & Co. (NRDC and other environmental organizations helped organize its distribution and approval in the form of a communique.)
comment at 30. November 2007
If corporations truly wanted such standards adopted, they would be spending real money in an effort to have such legislation enacted. Hence I can’t help but thinking you’re being a bit naïve.
comment at 18. December 2007
Well, gosh, the plane tickets to Bali couldn’t have been cheap, right? (Just to leave you no doubts about my naïveté…or my ability to work that spellchecker). Here’s the real story: these companies already are spending money to deal with global warming because it’s in their best interest to do so and because government is requiring it. From green building standards to exploring alternative fuels, they’re spending, even though they’d prefer not to. So was this just a big PR exercise in Bali? Probably not. Businesses want predictability and risk shared among competitors. That’s why they’re trying to push government to take the lead.
comment at 18. December 2007