More

HuffPost Social Reading

At NYC Climate Week, Leaders Launch Clean Revolution

Clean Revolution

First Posted: 09/22/2011 11:12 am Updated: 11/21/2011 4:12 am

Doing anything to fight man-made climate change is better than doing nothing at all.

This was the message projected by some of the world's most influential leaders -- including Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- as they launched a new campaign to curb worldwide greenhouse gas emissions at the kick off of Climate Week in New York City.

The campaign, dubbed the Clean Revolution, focuses on speeding up the development of clean technologies while creating new jobs and strengthening economic growth, as leaders keep in mind that by the year 2050, scientists predict the world will have to support 9 billion people, according to the group's website.

"Over the past year, Americans have had a taste of what climate change may mean for our city. We have had the rainiest day and the rainiest month ever. A tornado, a hurricane and the snowiest January on record and 16 blistering 90-degree plus day in this past July and early August," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said at the Monday launch. "Perhaps such extreme weather events are merely coincidental, or perhaps they're a warning of what the future holds."

While many hope for climate change to be addressed at a federal level, Bloomberg said it is up to states and cities to act on their own in the meantime. The city is "well on its way" to meeting the goals it signed onto as part of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, a network of cities around the world committed to addressing climate change locally, Bloomberg added. His PlaNYC initiative focuses on reducing the city's carbon footprint by 30 percent by 2030.

"For instance, we are on our way to planting half a million new trees. We have also passed our landmark green buildings law that will create up to 17,000 new jobs for New Yorkers," he said.

Mark Kenber, CEO of The Climate Group, a group backing Climate Revolution, said his organization wanted to see "a low carbon, high opportunity world."

"There are very few people that deny climate change," he told The Huffington Post. "Even if you're not the sort of person that is convinced by the evidence, or you are a denier of climate change, we are providing strategies that make sense."

"We are not trying to make a moral argument here. It is possible to reduce our carbon footprint and increase profit," he added.

Despite there not being mandatory global or national policies for companies to reduce their carbon footprint, nearly two thirds of S&P 500 companies have recognized the benefits of doing so, according to a new Carbon Disclosure Project report.

Kathy Nieland, a sustainability expert at accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, told HuffPost that companies are recognizing that they can ramp up their competitiveness by addressing climate change.

"If you think about it, if you use less energy you can reduce the cost of production. Consumers pick the product they believe is better for the environment, and there are generational differences. Companies are concerned with perception and reputation. When companies look into sourcing, or the outlook for their production, they realize it is imperative to look at the environment and the true limitations we have on our resources," Nieland said.

She said companies were looking at ways to lower the impact of their supply chain, and invest in renewable energy or nuclear power.

Jack Ehnes, CEO of the North American public pension fund CalSTRS, said in a press release: “We recognize the growing risk to our investment portfolio that carbon emissions present. In today’s economic environment, there is strategic advantage to addressing climate risk. Companies that measure their carbon emission exposure are better positioned to respond to changing regulatory requirements and to take advantage of efficiency opportunities that can increase shareholder value."

At the NYC Climate Week launch, Tony Blair spoke about the importance of businesses and industry working at different levels with each other to combat the effects of climate change:

"We need to mobilize the business community, not merely in the sense of individual businesses taking action, trying to behave more responsible vis-à-vis the environment. But also, business and industry working within a framework set at international, national and sub-national levels, which is incentivizing the development of the science and technology, which is in the end, the only way that this is going to be resolved."

* * * * *

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Doing anything to fight man-made climate change is better than doing nothing at all. This was the message projected by some of the world's most influential leaders -- including Britain's former Pr...
Doing anything to fight man-made climate change is better than doing nothing at all. This was the message projected by some of the world's most influential leaders -- including Britain's former Pr...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 98
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fiddler3
physicist, musician, parent
09:22 AM on 09/23/2011
"Indeed, a major factor in the White House decision on ozone was a map showing that 85 percent of America’s counties would be out of compliance with the Clean Air Act if the new rules were implemented. That would mean no new construction or manufacturing projects could begin - and no jobs “created or saved” - until billions were spent to bring existing facilities into compliance with arbitrary new ozone standards. Many of those counties are in politically important states such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, which better explains the administration’s sudden “conversion” than does any supposed recognition that its rules are unnecessary and harmful. Moreover, the ozone rule was not killed; it was postponed until after the 2012 elections." - CFACT
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
02:01 PM on 09/23/2011
That's right. There would be no jobs.

Worse than that, there would be no workers available. They would all be busy installing equipment to reduce ozone.

Imagine how terrible that would be.
photo
dwwill
Liberal Free Zone
11:53 PM on 09/22/2011
Watch and Listen to what BHO is not telling the people.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/blog/id.7985/blog_detail.asp
10:46 PM on 09/22/2011
Doing anything to fight man-made climate change is better than doing nothing at all.

Really?

NASA just reported that sea levels got LOWER in 2010.

Temps have flatlined.

Warming is about .6C from 1850 to 2011 which is perfectly normal.

There was NO (i.e. zip zero nada) warming at all from 1998 to 2008 even though CO2 was on a linear increase.

CO2 is increasing, and forests and plantlife around the globe is THRIVING.

Oh yeah, texas is in the middle of a drought. An area that constitutes .5% of planetary surface area which is experiencing a problem with rain while resevoirs in the rockies and sierras are at 100%. Not to mention that it was hotter and drier during the 1930s dustbowl years.

Cities and towns plan for 100 years floods. Well, except if your run by democrats in which case you are surprised every time it rains outside. It seems that most democrats running city governments have the iq of garden pests. And most can't read.
01:41 AM on 09/23/2011
There was NO (i.e. zip zero nada) warming at all from 1998 to 2008 even though CO2 was on a linear increase.

Yea if you do it that way there was just an incredible spike. lame.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dallas Dunlap
07:07 AM on 09/23/2011
FrankLuchan: You're putting up the usual distortions. First, global temp has risen .8degC since 1880, which is actually a big jump. From 1880-1970, the temp was rising by 0.03 deg C per decade. Since 1970, the global mean temp has been rising at 0.13deg C per decade.
It is definitely getting warmer, and eventually feedbacks will kick in which will raise the rate of warming even more.
And you play the usual denier trick of measuring from 1998, the 5th hottest year on record, to 2008, a relatively cool year, in order to claim that there was no warming. In fact, nine of the ten hottest years on record have occurred in the last ten years. The coolest years in the 2000s are hotter than the hottest years in previous decades.
Look up any plot of global temps and you will see the definite upward trend.
The one year drop in sea levels announced by NASA was caused, as NASA explained, by a very strong el nino-la nina shift, with moisture being evaporated from the ocean and dumped over land. (Hence the disastrous floods.) Sea levels have been rising by 3.27 mm per year over the past 15 years. Rising sea level is the long term trend.
It's interesting that you think that science is a Democratic vs Republican thing. The concept of objective reality seems to elude you.
09:36 PM on 09/22/2011
For all those deniers who continue to deny FACTS, here is the evidence that human activity is the main source of climate change today: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
08:03 PM on 09/22/2011
Cleaning NYC is the first green thing I can fully support, especially if they start with politics. Then, we can move on to Chicago.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:25 PM on 09/22/2011
Warning the following facts may rattle your cages.

GAO:Depiction of the Global Carbon Cycle Changes Over Time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3Al93fr8ic
08:34 PM on 09/22/2011
Do you have one of these that proves the link between atmospheric carbon and global temperature?

Oh yea, I have to take that piece on faith or, stated differently, believe your "model" which predicts temperature as a function of atmospheric carbon. Oh yea, your model is rigged to show a positive correlation.

Why don't you try my model:

GT(2) = GT(1) + 0*AC

Where GT(1) and GT(2) are global temperature before and after man's impact. AC is the atmospheric carbon added by evil corporations.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
B Wood
09:36 PM on 09/22/2011
I hear Roy Spencer knows a really cool backwater journal that will publish your formula and he can then hook you up with James Taylor from the Heartland Institute who will write a fake article for Forbes.com claiming your equation destroys AGW theory. He and the other industry backed websites will make sure this article is linked to their web apge so google searches on global warming will make sure it is near the top of the list. The fact that your formula is debunked within nanoseconds will not stop radio and cable blowhards and trolling posters on the internet from claiming that your little formula is the real deal.
01:43 AM on 09/23/2011
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif

We are talking 100 year old science here. Home schooled???
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
08:51 PM on 09/22/2011
That is excellent. These show quantities that are difficult to dispute without invoking black helicopter theories. We need more depictions like this to get out to the public. Somehow.
06:47 PM on 09/22/2011
convinced by the evidence WHAT EVIDENCE?
08:34 PM on 09/22/2011
The increase in hot air emited by Algore. Oh yea, he bought carbon credits to offset this!
01:48 AM on 09/23/2011
Good scientifically referenced argument there.
09:34 PM on 09/22/2011
THIS EVIDENCE:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Broderick Crawford
06:41 PM on 09/22/2011
Climate change is real. Why just last December it was much cooler here than it is now. And it can be blamed on anything. Too hot - climate change. Too cold - climate change. Good weather - climate change. Bad weather - climate change. It must have taken a real genius to conclude this. The only problem is that anything being proposed wouldn't alter the climate at all but just make a few ricdh people richer. All of the doomsday predictions about the Mississippi river valley being underwater by now have not come true. Perpetuating more cataclysmic events will have more to do with building in dangerous environments than anthropogenic global warming...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
08:26 PM on 09/22/2011
I won't even respond to the strawman arguments you used. Far to many of them for my taste.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
08:58 PM on 09/22/2011
Just the hot air that you are emitting is enough to prove climate change, Broderick.
BTW, I had better arguments on the school bus coming home from Kindergarten then you are making.
Hey if you are scared of the future, I am sorry for you, but you had better face it.

Check this link from Terry Floyd if you want to learn something.
http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=m3Al93fr8­ic
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Broderick Crawford
04:36 PM on 09/26/2011
There are Still people out there so foolish as to deny the existence of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

After all, among those who just know AGW to be true are some of the most important thinkers of our age: Leonardo DiCaprio, Paris Hilton, Ed Begley Jr., and Arnie Schwarzenegger. And who do the Climate Change deniers have in their camp, pray? Why, only complete nobodies like Professor Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist at MIT; professor and atmospheric physicist Fred Singer of the University of Virginia; Dr. Roy Spencer, a climatologist who used to work for NASA; Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics...
05:52 PM on 09/22/2011
By far the most effective approach would be to start efforts on limiting population growth. A stable population will make not only global warming, but pollution, over crowding, water supply, hunger, disease...all much more manageable. Having more than two (point 4) children is far worse for the planet than just about anything else one could do.
06:10 PM on 09/22/2011
You have unwittingly hit upon the core philosophy of the "green" movement; a hatred of people.
photo
canuckhoser
Don't mind the man behind the curtain
06:13 PM on 09/22/2011
white noise
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joe3245
How can we have lost control we never had?
10:21 PM on 09/22/2011
A hatred of people? We want the earth to continue to provide more and more resources for future generations, the best way to do that is to limit population and increase efficiency in all economic sectors.

The problem is that we cannot have both increasing population and increasing efficiency because we will gobble up all our resources. Look at the global fish catch, the decimation of rain forests, the decreasing productivity of new land for agriculture, dwindling phosphate reserves, accelerating rates of species extinction.

I don't even need to invoke the fact that climate is changing to show how much our economic activity coupled with a growing population is limiting the ability for renewable resources to be replenished.
07:08 PM on 09/22/2011
If over population is the problem, you and your friends can always jump off a cliff. How are you going to enforce zero population growth in the U.S.? Arrest? Imprisonment? Forced sterilization? What's your solution?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joe3245
How can we have lost control we never had?
10:24 PM on 09/22/2011
Urbanization of the population, education for women, increased access to birth control. These all work very well for controlling population without the use of coercion.
RSK1177
Concerned
12:30 AM on 09/23/2011
Obamacare will take care of part of over population. More free abortions, ration health care and let more people die. Dr. Emanuel, one of Obama's advisors is all for picking and choosing who lives or dies.
05:45 PM on 09/22/2011
Climate changes is confirmed in the geologic, biological, observational and instrument records. When a poster denies that it just makes them look completely incompetent.
08:38 PM on 09/22/2011
Wow, that sounds like a lot of support. You must be so smart. Do you have a degree from Harvard or something!?

Can you remind me which of the geologic, biological­, observatio­nal and instrument records proves the connection between man's activity and those confirming factors. For a smart person like you that should be simple, right?
01:33 AM on 09/23/2011
Actually as radioisotopes have been traced back to fossil fuel carbon - Yes
01:34 AM on 09/23/2011
And as I have actually seen a good deal of it first hand. What about you?
05:38 PM on 09/22/2011
Closing Indian Point will negate ANYTHING they can accomplish there. By far.

Clean energy is not the sunny easy breezy love fest it is made out to be. It takes commitment and sacrifice.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
willowtree3
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"
04:42 PM on 09/22/2011
Way to go NYC. DC is broken, so forge ahead on your own. Good job.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gloriaswanson43
Ask and you will get more info.
03:59 PM on 09/22/2011
"Consumers pick the product they believe is better for the environment" This is key: is it truly better for the environment or are the consumers told to believe that it is? Half of this article sounds like the new technological advances are making being "green" easier and the other half makes it sound like companies can make more "green" by jumping on the "green" bandwagon.
photo
AyeChart
Retired Army, half-retired physician
04:44 PM on 09/22/2011
Why do we make the assumption that consumers would have a clue what is better for the environment?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gloriaswanson43
Ask and you will get more info.
04:56 PM on 09/22/2011
I don't know. The only thing I have to go on is what the product manufacturer says about their product but I have no way of testing it. It still hearsay. Green blogs and articles or Whole Foods, company websites: aside from their word, we don't know. I don't even think we the public have "green" really defined.
05:46 PM on 09/22/2011
How do we know you are physician - Im not buying a science based education form your comments.
03:56 PM on 09/22/2011
Hey! That's great. Except in my state our governor is playing the denial card to look good to national teabaggers
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Aleks Hunter
Keep your greedy Mitt off our country!
04:33 PM on 09/22/2011
There is the problem. Making the TP people happy. Like in Texas where inthe name of budget cuts, they cut off funds for fire truck fuel and FIrefighter gear. They're going to burn the planet, but don't care as long as they get re-elected.

Fan #1
03:48 PM on 09/22/2011
As American's 401Ks plummet in value, and George Soros is investing in shale extraction in Poland I wonder how much longer the public will endure the green rent seekers. Solyndragate couldn't be more timely and hopefully put an end to the green jobs fraud that has failed in every EU nation that has pushed a green agenda.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dallas Dunlap
07:32 AM on 09/23/2011
Green jobs fraud? 100,000 Americans work in the solar energy sector, and that's just one part of the "green" economy.