NationStates Jolt Archive

Now this. This is encouraging. Wait till you see what companies are actually signed up with this. I would say that it's just bullshit PR, except that the environmental groups behind it are pretty heavy in the environmental activist community.

Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and the World Resources Institute.

You have to like this, unless you're a Bushevic warming skeptic.

Major corporations will team up with environmental groups to seek quicker action against global warming, detailing their partnership on Monday — a day ahead of President Bush's State of the Union speech in which he is expected to address climate change.

In what they described as an "unprecedented alliance," 10 U.S.-based companies and four environmental groups have been working on a strategy over the last year and will present their findings at the National Press Club on Monday morning.

In a statement Friday, the group said it would "call for swift federal action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and speeding the adoption of climate-friendly technology."

Called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, the group includes aluminum giant Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, DuPont, General Electric, Lehman Brothers as well as four utilities with a big stake in climate policy: Duke Energy, FPL Group, PG&E and PNM Resources. (MSNBC.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and GE's NBC Universal unit.)

Environmental community members are Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and the World Resources Institute.

The partners said they had agreed on a "shared goal of slowing, stopping and reversing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions over the shortest period of time reasonably achievable."

Carbon caps called for
The group will call for caps on carbon dioxide emissions that would lead to reductions of 10 to 30 percent over the next 15 years, the New York Times and Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

In a statement of principles, the business leaders also agreed to “strongly discourage further construction of stationary sources that cannot easily capture” carbon dioxide, the Times reported, in a reference to conventional coal-burning power plants.

The coalition’s diversity could send a signal that businesses want to get ahead of the increasing political momentum for federal emissions controls, in part to protect their long-term interests, the Times said.

Bush in his speech next week is likely to support a massive increase in U.S. ethanol usage and tweak climate change policy, sources familiar with the White House plans said on Tuesday.

Political movement
The White House on Tuesday confirmed that the speech will outline a policy on global warming, but said Bush has not dropped his opposition to mandatory limits on the heat-trapping greenhouse-gas emissions.

The Kyoto Protocol is the only global pact obliging signatories to cut carbon dioxide emissions, but the United States is not a member, nor are China and India. The protocol expires in 2012.

News of the coalition comes as different governments and groups devote more attention to global environmental policy.

Democrats in Congress are pushing legislation to curb carbon emissions, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has even proposed creating a special committee to deal with the issue.

In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an executive order Thursday to reduce carbon emissions from transportation fuels, a move intended to widen the development and use of alternative vehicle fuels in the nation’s biggest state.

Abroad, the European Union's top diplomat said on Thursday that global warming has moved to the heart of European foreign policy.

And on Monday, a summit of Asian leaders promised to encourage more efficient energy use to help stave off global warming.

An EU-United States summit in April is expected to focus on energy security and a Group of Eight summit in early June will highlight energy and climate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16708004/

Maybe the science has just reached an undeniable tipping point. Even if you like to brush your teeth with money, at some point you still have children.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/Newsweek/Components/Photos/070116_070122/070117_Environment_xtrawide.jpg

Hooray for social responsibility and common sense! If this is legit, we should have a reverse-boycott.

I've always wanted a bulldozer...

Hooray for social responsibility and common sense! If this is legit, we should have a reverse-boycott.

I've always wanted a bulldozer...

I wonder if any of the skeptics around here will boycott BP or Duke Energy now. :confused:

Jan. 17, 2007 - A group of 28 scientists and evangelical Christians today announced their commitment to working together to address global and environmental climate change--an issue that they say is pressing enough to trump any theological differences between the groups. Eric Chivian, director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, is one of the scientists leading the collaboration. In an interview with NEWSWEEK’s Samantha Henig, Chivian discussed the origins of this peculiar union, what the two groups have in common, how the evangelical Christian community can help scientists and the spiritual significance of his fruit garden. Excerpts:

There may be hope for us yet. China's a problem, though.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16671785/site/newsweek/

My guess is that they've seen the change coming, and they'd rather be at the table hoping to influence legislation than left out in the cold.

My guess is that they've seen the change coming, and they'd rather be at the table hoping to influence legislation than left out in the cold.

maybe, but Pew, NRDC and WRI would probably be able to suss that pretty quickly. They're not just going to Bush and saying "do something," they're going to Bush and saying, "here's what you should do." They have actual proposals. If it was just bullshit I think Duke Energy would have a hard time getting it past the National Resources Defense Council.

maybe, but Pew, NRDC and WRI would probably be able to suss that pretty quickly. They're not just going to Bush and saying "do something," they're going to Bush and saying, "here's what you should do." They have actual proposals. If it was just bullshit I think Duke Energy would have a hard time getting it past the National Resources Defense Council.Oh, I'm not saying that they're bullshitting--what I'm saying is that they're looking at the near political future, discovering that the Dems will probably hold onto both Houses of Congress and have a good shot at the presidency in 2008, and they don't want to be shithammered in the meantime. If they get in on the discussion, they figure they can moderate the response some. The rate at which these things more almost guarantees that no major work will be done on it while Bush is in office.

Hooray for social responsibility and common sense!
It's PR, not social responsibility.

If those companies are practising social responsibility, their boards deserve to be fired. That's not the job of a corporation; the job of a corporation is to earn profit.

If those companies are practising social responsibility, their boards deserve to be fired. That's not the job of a corporation; the job of a corporation is to earn profit.

Social responsibility sells. In today's much more open and interconnected economy, image is vital to ensuring that your company earns a profit and maximizes its growth potential; I would say a company that doesn't make overtures towards the public through SR is the one that should be restructured simply due to the lost profit potential of that buzzword.

Practically speaking, however, alternatives and green technology are the future in the energy market and any company that misses out on them is going to lose a lot of money; not investing in these technologies will cost them money, both from missed business opportunities and negative PR.

Oh, I'm not saying that they're bullshitting--what I'm saying is that they're looking at the near political future, discovering that the Dems will probably hold onto both Houses of Congress and have a good shot at the presidency in 2008, and they don't want to be shithammered in the meantime. If they get in on the discussion, they figure they can moderate the response some. The rate at which these things more almost guarantees that no major work will be done on it while Bush is in office.

maybe, but look at this:

In a statement of principles, the business leaders also agreed to “strongly discourage further construction of stationary sources that cannot easily capture” carbon dioxide, the Times reported, in a reference to conventional coal-burning power plants.

That's pointed at the coal burning electricity generating industry and the biggest of the big there is Duke Energy - a member of this "coalition."

Hee, I made a deliberate type as a pun. :)

And here GE and AES are acting independently. Even if this is all for PR, it's undeniably a bigger step in the right direction than I have seen in a long time. We've gone from all these companies denying climate change to all these companies trying to one up each other in the public eye.

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A unit of General Electric Co. has formed a partnership with power producer AES Corp. to develop projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.

GE Energy Financial Services and Arlington, Va.-based AES will try to offset 10 million metric tons of greenhouse gases annually by 2010. That reduction is the equivalent of the annual emissions of 2.2 million average cars, GE officials said. (MSNBC.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and GE's NBC Universal unit.)

The partnership, which comes amid growing worries about global warming, marks the entry of two major corporations into a fragmented market of companies involved in such projects, GE officials said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16655418/

Social responsibility sells. In today's much more open and interconnected economy, image is vital to ensuring that your company earns a profit and maximizes its growth potential; I would say a company that doesn't make overtures towards the public through SR is the one that should be restructured simply due to the lost profit potential of that buzzword.

Practically speaking, however, alternatives and green technology are the future in the energy market and any company that misses out on them is going to lose a lot of money; not investing in these technologies will cost them money, both from missed business opportunities and negative PR.

...and after GE and AES made their annoucement in the post above:

Shares of GE rose 11 cents to $37.99 in late morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange, while AES shares rose 6 cents to $21.

It's PR, not social responsibility.

If those companies are practising social responsibility, their boards deserve to be fired. That's not the job of a corporation; the job of a corporation is to earn profit.
Even if the social responsibility is in the company's financial interest?

...and after GE and AES made their annoucement in the post above:

I figured; they're seeing that the costs of not taking a proactive stance on global warming are a lot more than the costs of doing so.

GE is making a fortune on things like wind turbines, CNG engines, solar power, and all of the stuff in the alternative energy industry...and a partnership with a utility developing that stuff means both of them win, especially with the outlook for alternative in the next decade or so. Any industry that has steady 30-50% growth for several years is going to produce huge profits, and it makes perfect sense to capitalize on that. You make more money, save money by eliminating the volatility of fossil fuel prices, and burnish your corporate image by reducing emissions...it's a total win no matter which angle you analyze it from.

I mean, really, you have nothing to gain from denying global warming. We're not going to materialize another trillion barrels of light crude out of thin air or find a way to magically wave away our CO2 emissions, so to oppose global warming because it is a threat to the petroleum industry or to your bottom line is mind-bogglingly myopic.

If those companies are practising social responsibility, their boards deserve to be fired. That's not the job of a corporation; the job of a corporation is to earn profit.

mmm, market fundamentalism

mmm, market fundamentalism

Coupled with a profound misunderstanding of the market.

Coupled with a profound misunderstanding of the market.

Not much of a market to cater to if we make the planet unlivable for humans after all.

Not much of a market to cater to if we make the planet unlivable for humans after all.

That's not possible. God will save us. It's extremely arrogant to think humans can do humans can do bad things to the Earth or air or whatever... :)

That's not possible. God will save us. It's extremely arrogant to think humans can do humans can do bad things to the Earth or air or whatever... :)

I believe that there is a saying in Iran that says "God sets limits to test mankind." We should heed that lesson if we want to continue to grow and improve as a society.

Even if the social responsibility is in the company's financial interest?
Only then.

Either it would be PR (people want the compan to be socially responsible), there are positive side-effects (being a good citizen produces longer-term returns on some resource), or there are government funds to be had (grants for unprofitable R&D).

Social responsibility for the sake of being socially responsible is not a corporation's job, and as a shareholder I'd be pissed if it happened.

Coupled with a profound misunderstanding of the market.
Not at all. If they behave in a socially responsible manner in order to increase profits, that's perfectly acceptable behaviour.

But everything they do should be to increase profits, either now or in the future.

But everything they do should be to increase profits, either now or in the future.
That depends on what their shareholders think, and unless you are one it is not your place to dictate this dogma.

Only then.

Either it would be PR (people want the compan to be socially responsible), there are positive side-effects (being a good citizen produces longer-term returns on some resource), or there are government funds to be had (grants for unprofitable R&D).

Social responsibility for the sake of being socially responsible is not a corporation's job, and as a shareholder I'd be pissed if it happened.

I'd be pissed as a shareholder if a corporation wasn't socially responsible. I have my own company and I try to be a green as possible even though it reduces my profit.

I'd be pissed as a shareholder if a corporation wasn't socially responsible. I have my own company and I try to be a green as possible even though it reduces my profit.
And thus I would never buy shares of any company you ran.

Ever notice how vice funds outperform ethical funds?