Business & Global Warming
Post
23/01/07, Jeffrey Simpson, The silence of big business on climate change is deafening, (Source).
23/01/07, BBC, Bush 'must fight climate change', (Source).
23/01/07, Jeffrey Simpson, The silence of big business on climate change is deafening, (Back).
Is the jig finally up for the Canadian fossil fuel industry's long campaign of denial and delay against climate change?
For almost two decades, the industry -- and business generally -- has proven brilliantly successful in combatting regulations and economic measures that would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
Every time a Canadian government hinted or appeared ready to move in this direction, the industry successfully lobbied against action. As a result, there have been no carbon taxes, mandatory emissions requirements, obligatory targets on vehicle manufacturers, or cap-and-trade system.
Instead, industry has lobbied for voluntary measures and programs based on improving energy "intensity," or efficiency -- something any sensible industry would try to achieve to reduce costs.
For example, the fossil fuel industry was delighted with the Chrétien government's Climate Change Voluntary Challenge and Registry Program (VCR), a clearing house for industries to report what they had accomplished. As if to illustrate that voluntarism was the way to go, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers became the first industry association to sign up.
The result? According to last year's report of the Commissioner of Sustainable Development: a VCR-induced reduction of a laughable .04-million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
When subsequent Liberal governments proposed special reductions for Large Final Emitters (LFEs), industry lobbied successfully for the targets to be reduced and the time frames for compliance lengthened. Eventually, the whole idea was dropped.
Companies such as Imperial Oil, Talisman, Petro-Canada, Syncrude and EnCana, among many others, were in the forefront of denial about climate change and hostility toward the Kyoto Protocol.
Gwyn Morgan, then EnCana's CEO, wrote a public letter saying ratifying Kyoto "would go down in history as one of the most damaging international agreements ever signed by a Canadian prime minister." A chorus of fossil-fuel company executives echoed his warning. Imperial Oil, a subsidiary of Exxon-Mobil, played out in Canada the parent company's worldwide policy of debunking climate-change and financing critical scientific research.
Big business lobby groups such as the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce were bullhorns for the anti-Kyoto arguments. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association warned Kyoto would cost Canada 450,000 jobs and $40-billion, figures picked up and often used by Reform Party leader Preston Manning and Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper.
Denial and delay, then, have been the fossil fuel industry's successful strategies. Attention was often drawn to the United States, where little was happening, to underscore arguments about Canada's competitive disadvantage were action taken against climate change.
Those arguments look increasingly hollow. Three bills are now before the U.S. Senate on climate change, two of which call for substantial emissions reductions starting in about 2012, using mandatory regulations forcing reductions. Some Democratic politicians and Republican presidential hopeful John McCain want emissions caps.
Tonight, President George W. Bush, whose presidency has tanked over the Iraq disaster (among others), is expected to present an array of "green" ideas in his State of the Union Address, building on his previous observation that the United States is "addicted" to oil.
Nothing happens easily or quickly in a U.S. political system designed to slow down action. The President doesn't really want to take on the oil industry, one of his biggest backers. Democrats from car-producing states and fossil fuel-producing districts will frustrate action. Increasing evidence suggests they are fighting a rearguard action, and that the U.S. will be setting tough targets, using market mechanisms to get there.
Quite typically, U.S. business leaders are entering the debate supporting strong measures. A corporate coalition of environmental groups and big companies such as British Petroleum, Alcoa, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Dupont and General Electric has been formed to push for action. The president of Wal-Mart is talking up the threat of climate change everywhere and insisting his company massively promote environmentally friendly consumer products.
In Canada, by contrast, business leaders remain largely silent. What bank president has taken on this issue, let alone a fossil-fuel company president? Where are the big business bullhorns? A few business leaders in Canada have drawn attention to the success and concern of their companies. They've been rather lonely voices.
In Canada, denial, delay, silence, voluntary measures and energy-intensity measures have been the preferred strategies. When will some enlightened business leader realize those jigs are up, and start getting serious?
23/01/07, BBC, Bush 'must fight climate change', (Back).
Chief executives of some of the largest companies in the US have urged President George W Bush to introduce measures to tackle global warming.
The executives from nine corporations said Mr Bush should support a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr Bush will address the issue in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, but will not introduce binding rules for emissions, the White House says.
President Bush has in the past rejected mandatory controls on greenhouse gases.
Former President Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto protocol but it was never ratified by Congress.
'Desire for clarity'
"We can and must take prompt action to establish a co-ordinated, economy-wide market-driven approach to climate protection," the executives said in a letter to President Bush.
They have formed a group - the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) - which they intend to use to push for mandatory caps on greenhouse gases to cut them by more than 60% by 2050.
"It's time for the nation's political leaders to come together and act," Duke Energy chief executive Jim Rogers - a USCAP member - told reporters at a news conference in Washington.
Other members of the USCAP are CEOs of Alcoa, BP America, DuPont, Caterpillar, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, FPL Group and PG and E.
The pressure from big business stems from a desire for clarity, the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says.
At the moment, some states impose caps and the severity varies.
The White House said President Bush was going to make an important announcement about energy efficiency and greenhouse gases.
But White House press secretary Tony Snow said "binding economy-wide carbon caps" are not part of Mr Bush's approach.
Mr Snow added that the president believed that industry must come up with innovations to address the issue of climate change.
23/01/07, BBC, Bush 'must fight climate change', (Source).
23/01/07, Jeffrey Simpson, The silence of big business on climate change is deafening, (Back).
Is the jig finally up for the Canadian fossil fuel industry's long campaign of denial and delay against climate change?
For almost two decades, the industry -- and business generally -- has proven brilliantly successful in combatting regulations and economic measures that would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
Every time a Canadian government hinted or appeared ready to move in this direction, the industry successfully lobbied against action. As a result, there have been no carbon taxes, mandatory emissions requirements, obligatory targets on vehicle manufacturers, or cap-and-trade system.
Instead, industry has lobbied for voluntary measures and programs based on improving energy "intensity," or efficiency -- something any sensible industry would try to achieve to reduce costs.
For example, the fossil fuel industry was delighted with the Chrétien government's Climate Change Voluntary Challenge and Registry Program (VCR), a clearing house for industries to report what they had accomplished. As if to illustrate that voluntarism was the way to go, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers became the first industry association to sign up.
The result? According to last year's report of the Commissioner of Sustainable Development: a VCR-induced reduction of a laughable .04-million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
When subsequent Liberal governments proposed special reductions for Large Final Emitters (LFEs), industry lobbied successfully for the targets to be reduced and the time frames for compliance lengthened. Eventually, the whole idea was dropped.
Companies such as Imperial Oil, Talisman, Petro-Canada, Syncrude and EnCana, among many others, were in the forefront of denial about climate change and hostility toward the Kyoto Protocol.
Gwyn Morgan, then EnCana's CEO, wrote a public letter saying ratifying Kyoto "would go down in history as one of the most damaging international agreements ever signed by a Canadian prime minister." A chorus of fossil-fuel company executives echoed his warning. Imperial Oil, a subsidiary of Exxon-Mobil, played out in Canada the parent company's worldwide policy of debunking climate-change and financing critical scientific research.
Big business lobby groups such as the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce were bullhorns for the anti-Kyoto arguments. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association warned Kyoto would cost Canada 450,000 jobs and $40-billion, figures picked up and often used by Reform Party leader Preston Manning and Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper.
Denial and delay, then, have been the fossil fuel industry's successful strategies. Attention was often drawn to the United States, where little was happening, to underscore arguments about Canada's competitive disadvantage were action taken against climate change.
Those arguments look increasingly hollow. Three bills are now before the U.S. Senate on climate change, two of which call for substantial emissions reductions starting in about 2012, using mandatory regulations forcing reductions. Some Democratic politicians and Republican presidential hopeful John McCain want emissions caps.
Tonight, President George W. Bush, whose presidency has tanked over the Iraq disaster (among others), is expected to present an array of "green" ideas in his State of the Union Address, building on his previous observation that the United States is "addicted" to oil.
Nothing happens easily or quickly in a U.S. political system designed to slow down action. The President doesn't really want to take on the oil industry, one of his biggest backers. Democrats from car-producing states and fossil fuel-producing districts will frustrate action. Increasing evidence suggests they are fighting a rearguard action, and that the U.S. will be setting tough targets, using market mechanisms to get there.
Quite typically, U.S. business leaders are entering the debate supporting strong measures. A corporate coalition of environmental groups and big companies such as British Petroleum, Alcoa, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Dupont and General Electric has been formed to push for action. The president of Wal-Mart is talking up the threat of climate change everywhere and insisting his company massively promote environmentally friendly consumer products.
In Canada, by contrast, business leaders remain largely silent. What bank president has taken on this issue, let alone a fossil-fuel company president? Where are the big business bullhorns? A few business leaders in Canada have drawn attention to the success and concern of their companies. They've been rather lonely voices.
In Canada, denial, delay, silence, voluntary measures and energy-intensity measures have been the preferred strategies. When will some enlightened business leader realize those jigs are up, and start getting serious?
23/01/07, BBC, Bush 'must fight climate change', (Back).
Chief executives of some of the largest companies in the US have urged President George W Bush to introduce measures to tackle global warming.
The executives from nine corporations said Mr Bush should support a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr Bush will address the issue in his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, but will not introduce binding rules for emissions, the White House says.
President Bush has in the past rejected mandatory controls on greenhouse gases.
Former President Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto protocol but it was never ratified by Congress.
'Desire for clarity'
"We can and must take prompt action to establish a co-ordinated, economy-wide market-driven approach to climate protection," the executives said in a letter to President Bush.
They have formed a group - the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) - which they intend to use to push for mandatory caps on greenhouse gases to cut them by more than 60% by 2050.
"It's time for the nation's political leaders to come together and act," Duke Energy chief executive Jim Rogers - a USCAP member - told reporters at a news conference in Washington.
Other members of the USCAP are CEOs of Alcoa, BP America, DuPont, Caterpillar, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, FPL Group and PG and E.
The pressure from big business stems from a desire for clarity, the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says.
At the moment, some states impose caps and the severity varies.
The White House said President Bush was going to make an important announcement about energy efficiency and greenhouse gases.
But White House press secretary Tony Snow said "binding economy-wide carbon caps" are not part of Mr Bush's approach.
Mr Snow added that the president believed that industry must come up with innovations to address the issue of climate change.
Home