In the world as we know it, only environmental activists are the movers and shakers in climate politics. Yet, leading up to the Cancún climate summit, international business emerged as a major apostle for bold steps towards a global climate deal. This represents a historic opportunity that governments need to seize. Otherwise, corporate backlash against climate regulation might occur -- history sounds a warning.
Conventional wisdom holds that business opposes new environmental regulation. In fact, about 13 years ago -- in the run-up to the Kyoto climate conference -- the Global Climate Coalition, the main voice of global industry at the time, lobbied hard against international emission reduction mandates. In the United States, the coalition succeeded in mobilising the Senate to unanimously pass the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which said that the Senate would not ratify a climate treaty that did not include emission reduction commitments for developing countries. Ultimately, the United States did not ratify the protocol.
A sea change has occurred in the global business community since. Recently, the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change launched the Cancún Communiqué. Signed by more than 250 companies from across the globe, the statement sets out principles for an ambitious, robust and equitable climate treaty. It echoed the strong support among the international business community for progress towards a climate agreement: "the scientific evidence remains overwhelming and the case for bold and urgent action to tackle climate change is stronger than ever... It is critical that governments re-double their efforts towards securing a comprehensive international framework."
Moreover, the investor network Ceres and the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative launched a statement last week, which called for domestic and international climate action. It is supported by 259 investors, who manage combined assets of over US$15 trillion. In the United States, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of major corporations and green groups, has been lobbying for a domestic cap-and-trade scheme over years. This is not to say that the voice of industry opposition has fallen silent, but it has become substantially weaker--the balance of power within industry has shifted to the supporters of an agreement. Companies have jumped on the environmental bandwagon for strong business reasons.
First, an increasing number of firms in the energy sector and in energy-intensive manufacturing sectors seek regulatory certainty. Investments in energy infrastructure have a lifespan of as many as 50 years, which calls for long-term regulatory certainty. Assuming that mandatory greenhouse gas emission controls are to come in any case, firms prefer to know sooner than later. In addition, these companies want to be ahead of the curve in influencing international and domestic climate regulation to ensure the rules of the game are favourable to them. James Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy, famously quipped: "If you're not at the table, you're going to be on the menu."
Second, the corporate winners of a green economy have emerged as a force in climate politics, throwing their weight behind a deal. If a price is put on carbon dioxide emissions, producers of low-carbon technologies are likely to experience an increase in demand for their products. Moreover, cap-and-trade schemes -- a key pillar of climate policies around the globe -- create new commodity markets in their own rights. In 2009, the global carbon market was worth $144 billion, and it is expected to grow exponentially over the coming decade. In particular financial services providers, accountants and lawyers have taken great interest in the carbon gold rush.
Third, European companies in global energy-intensive industries, such as cement and steel, have a keen interest in creating a level-playing field with competitors in major emerging economies. Firms in the EU are already operating under emission restrictions in the EU Emission Trading Scheme. Hence, firms are pushing for an agreement that includes some form of emission reduction commitment from major competitors such as China.
Business has proven more than once to hold veto power over environmental policy. Hence, current business support for meaningful progress on a global climate deal represents a historic opportunity -- governments need to seize it. Corporate backlash against international climate regulation remains possible if international negotiations fail, carbon markets plunge and major emitters free ride. Such a return to the future would be a disastrous setback. The best way to avoid it is to ride the momentum by taking bold steps towards an international long-term regulatory framework now.
Kelly Rigg: Aviation Industry on Trial: The Dark Arts of Climate Obstructionism
However, the MWP deniers, such as the IPCC, US EPA, CSIRO and the UK’s MET Office, will never admit the existence of the MWP because it means that their religious-like belief in AGW is exposed for the steaming pile of junk science that it truly is.
In total, climate change is complex and not well understood.
But this part is simple.
Since the world was warmer when CO2 levels were lower, CO2 cannot be the earth's temperature regulator. There must be other factors.
In the past, the Earth was warmer than it is today; before the social and industrial advances that have made modern people the healthiest and most prosperous in history. MWP deniers want us to believe that plant friendly and life giving CO2 is a bad thing to better advance their meglomanical desire to both boss around the developed world and further impoverish the poor while pocketing a lot of taxpayer money.
Useless, misguided attempts to control carbon are not the answer to the ever changing climate.There is only one answer to changes in climate that has ever worked for humanity.
That is adaptation.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/a-regional-approach-to-the-medieval-warm-period-and-the-little-ice-age
--------------------------------------
Ork: "The overwhelming paleoclimate evidence from around the globe is that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warming were synchronous, world wide and much warmer than today."
Patently false.
The NOAA:
"The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
The farther one goes back in time the less information we have, as such there is no global reconstruction for the Roman period, to say nothing of the Minoan period -- these only exist in science denier-land.
Ork: "Since the world was warmer when CO2 levels were lower, CO2 cannot be the earth's temperature regulator. There must be other factors."
Got any more science denier straw men? Of course you do.
And get back to us when you have links to actual reputable scientific organizations.
See Electric Surprises on the Aesop Institute website.
www.aesopinstitute.org
Massive blackouts caused by solar flares now threaten most power grids with failures lasting for weeks. Cities such as NY, DC, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, and many more, are all shown as areas of possible power system collapse on a map published by NASA.
NOAA predicts four such horrendous events are possible during the next decade.
The Grid Act has been passed by the House of Representa tives. A Senate committee removed the solar threat, but it can readily be restored in Conference if the Senate recognizes the potential emergency and acts to approve it.
This threat can unite the nation and overcome political resistance . But, leadership is lacking.
Imagine the influence the business community could have - and the degree to which they would be serving their own self-interest!
But you couldn’t be more wrong.
“It’s all actually a sign that man made global warming is very much a live issue and that there’s more of it happening than ever.....”
James Delingpole in the Telegraph