Businesses call for shift to low-carbon economy

A group of business executives on Tuesday issued a call for action on energy policy, arguing the cost of moving to cleaner energy technologies in the next decade will avert costs from climate change.

The Copenhagen Climate Council, an organization formed to create awareness for global climate negotiations in December, issued the statement at the conclusion of the World Business Summit, a three-day conference in Copenhagen of businesses and climate experts.

"The Copenhagen Call" document is a set of recommendations to policy makers, listing six policy changes required for businesses to make investments that will lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

To create a stronger incentive to invest in green technologies, the group said there needs to be an international carbon market built around a cap on emissions and the ability to trade permits to emit greenhouse gases.

The statement said that policy should be based on the target of lowering greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere by at least 50 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. To prevent temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels, greenhouse gas emissions must peak this decade and then start dropping.

The "Call" also says standards and regulations can promote adoption of existing technologies, such as efficient appliances and vehicles.

"A shift to a low-carbon economy, supported by private sector participation and government, has the potential to drive the next generation of technological innovation, address the environmental and economic challenges that climate change presents, and contribute to global development," according to the statement.

Among the participants were executives from large corporations, including Unilever, BP, Duke Energy, and PepsiCo, and as well as high-ranking politicians. (Click here to see program and working group members.)

Carbon regulations will send a long-term signal that there is a price attached to carbon emissions that will push businesses to invest in low-emitting technologies, the participants said.

"We're going to have to fundamentally redefine our business models in a low-carbon world," an Associated Press article quoted Duke Energy CEO James Rogers saying. "Every business has to look inward and figure that out."

In general, smaller green-tech entrepreneurs and investors don't expect carbon regulations to have an immediate impact on their plans. The rules, which typically affect heavy polluters such as utilities, are expected to take years to fully implement.

[fredtheviking]

Global Cap-and-Trade. I like it because it is based on targets and guarentees a lowering of carbon emission (if only in theory). The problem is that governments are left with job of playing carbon cop with little incestive to do so. It is not like a government would make money on stoping bussiness from ignoring the system and doing what they want to.

Instead why not have a global carbon tax. Allow businesses to pollute as much as they want to, but at a price. Increase the tax every year by 10% or more depending on the pressure need to get the market to change behavior to reach global emission goals. Oviously, if business bring carbon under control on thier own, no need to increase the tax. The money could go to the governments enforcing the tax. Or even better, some to governments enforcing the measure and some to the UN or Global Carbon Control agency set-up to oversee this tax. Governement who refuse to enforce the measure could be sanction.

Easier to understand, control, monitor, and enforce. It seems like these corporation are just trying to blow stream up our butts with this cap-and-trade nonsense.

[Stompie79]

Hear, hear.

[gerrrg]

Which is why I think the US Cap and Trade push is premature. There needs to be an international framework in place, else we risk spending American capital to offset Chinese growth and pollution.

[Random_Walk]

Problem is, the whole cap-and-trade as it is practiced nowadays is not much more than a feel-good scam. It would be drop-easy for a carbon trade 'company' to be formed that takes D-grade stock (or some similarly worthless instrument) as payment... or to have the carbon trader simply shuffle some numbers around and suddenly be able to pollute as much as desired without having to really pay for it.

As far as taxation? Good luck with that one. Take a peek at the US Tax Code sometime. Ever wonder why something that should nominally take only 10 pages of text, instead weighs in at literally half a ton of paper? If you think loopholes are ugly now, wait'll special interests get hold of carbon taxation...

[alstatr]

A Cap and Trade system sounds great in theory but we as people are incentive driven. Until incentives for people to save the environment appeal to the average joe, we are going to continue business as usual. A tax is not a incentive as it will just be passed along to consumers and thus prices will increase and demand will decrease thus leading to more unemployment.

I don't know the answer but more government control is not the answer. The government is already terrible at using money wisely. Why give it more money through taxes?

[ralfthedog]

@alstatr.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0&feature=player_embedded

[alstatr]

I've seen that video a few times, it always gets a laugh out of me. I'm not that crazy/naive to believe that there should be no government control/intervention.

I do think that there are dangers with giving the government more money through taxes. What will government do with this money? Clean up the environmental disasters of the past? No, they will spend it on the projects they have interest in.

I work for a large electric and gas utility and the company has said they will simply pass along the cost of Cap and Trade to the customers. My company has no problem doubling everyone's bill. It will just hurt people who are already being squeezed by increases costs and small businesses.

Like I said I don't know the answer but I am searching for an alternative to taxation. Any ideas?

[behindthegreen]

We're all moving that way. The sooner we get there the better.

[UpajOs]

Pulleeez! I'm sick to death already of all this global warming/climate change/carbon footprint/greenhouse gas nonsense. The people who are pushing this stuff are a bunch of plutocrats out to line their own pockets and make the rest of us look like dopes for buying into their harebrained schemes. It seems like the popular press is in lockstep, a bunch of sleepwalkers, shilling for these creeps. Anybody who's successfully completed a few high school college-prep level science classes has enough smarts to see through the smokescreen.

[mattie121]

Maybe if they stop with the prep classes and invest thier carrers in flipping burgers. The majority of the experts in the field don't agree with you (But yes, you can cherry pick those few that do.) But those that go one to graduate degrees tend to think your position is total BS. But whether you believe or not, there is money in efficiency. Efficiency lowers the cost to operate, and can significantly lower total cost to own, as well as materials cost in production. Driving lazy industry in this direction is a good thing, whether you're looking at the economics or the waste impact.

BTW, there is a working cap and trade system in effect on sulfur emmisions that has worked to good effect.