On a Rolls

Businesses urge policy for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions

Posted at 4:01 PM on 30 Nov 2007

More than 150 international companies have signed on to a petition begging diplomats meeting in Bali next week to come up with policy aimed at cutting global greenhouse-gas emissions at least in half by 2050. The companies -- Shell, Coca-Cola, Dupont, British Airways, Rolls Royce, and many, many, more -- "urge world leaders to seize this opportunity" with "strong, early action on climate change." The petition also stated that a push to reduce emissions would "create significant business opportunities" and a legally binding agreement "will provide business with the certainty it needs to scale up global investment in low-carbon technologies." Apparently these businesses -- comprising some 80 percent of the world's largest companies -- didn't get the environment vs. economy memo.

sources: Associated Press, The Washington Post
peruse the petition: The Bali Communiqué
see also, in Grist: Mega-corporations sign U.N.-sponsored climate compact

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (1 comment)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

On A Related Note: Climate, McKinsey Report

I have an observation related to the climate change issue, the very recent McKinsey report, and the relationship between businesses and climate change. I hope the group finds it useful.

I recently finished reading through, and thinking about, the initial pages (including the "Executive summary") of the recent McKinsey report, "Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?" I've come to a tentative observation that I wanted to share with you.

First, there are, of course, some things that I don't know at this stage, including:

I haven't read the entire report yet . . . just the pages up to and including the "Executive summary."
I don't know, off-hand, how the carbon dioxide emissions reductions in the higher-end projections in the report compare to the reductions that scientists say are necessary.

In essence, what I wanted to share is this:

In my view, unless I am missing something rather large, you can't really read the report (as far as the "Executive summary" anyhow) and sensibly come to any conclusion other than that a carbon cap or carbon tax will be necessary if we want substantial reductions in emissions.

I think it would be very hard, for any business-minded person (on the right or left), to explain how either one or the other of a carbon cap-and-trade or carbon tax would not be necessary if we are serious about reducing (or even controlling) emissions that lead to climate change.

A question that should be asked, soon, of Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, and corporate leaders, and economic pundits, is this: "How can you read the McKinsey report and come to any conclusion other than that, if we want to address Greenhouse Gas emissions to any substantial degree, we will need either a carbon cap-and-trade approach, a carbon tax, or a huge number of individual detailed regulations that call for a wide range of specific actions?"

Of course, there is always a chance that my interpretation of the first sections of the report is incorrect. But, given the timing of Bali and the presidential process, I thought I'd toss this initial observation into a few public forums. In the interest of full disclosure, long ago, I used to work for McKinsey.

I hope this message is helpful in some way.

Cheers. "Keep Cool"

by Jeff Huggins at 7:10 AM on 02 Dec 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?