Road to Copenhagen: A New Social Contract

As we approach the climate conference in Copenhagen, politicians are balking and diplomats are burning the midnight oil, deprived of sleep. But we can take heart. Some unlikely new heroes may come to the rescue.

One prospective hero is The Citizen-Consumer. Consumers are not the first group that pops to my mind when I think about environmental leadership. Unbridled consumption without regard for consequences has much to do with the mess we’re in.

Then came a poll by TIME magazine over the summer. It found that nearly four of every 10 American consumers over age 18 regularly and deliberately choose products made by “socially responsible” companies. If conspicuous consumption got us into this mess, can it be that conscionable consumption will get us out? Maybe. Based on its poll and several other factors, TIME concludes:

"In America, we are recalibrating our sense of what it means to be a citizen, not just through voting or volunteering, but also through what we buy. … We are seeing the rise of the citizen consumer — and the beginnings of a responsibility revolution."

We might be tempted to assume these green consumers — TIME calls them the “responsibles” — come from the liberal wing of America’s vast customer base. We’d be wrong. According to TIME’s poll, “responsibles” are almost equally divided between people who classify themselves as conservatives, moderates and liberals.

The second unlikely hero is The Corporation. New evidence suggests that companies around the world are beginning to discover that “green” is golden. A significant number of companies apparently are committing to social responsibility and sustainability.

For example, after interviewing more than 200 corporations that represent 75 percent of the $36 trillion equities market in the United States, Siemens and McGraw-Hill Construction concluded that “corporate America’s embrace of sustainability has more than doubled in strength in the past three years with 76 percent of the largest U.S. firms reporting efforts and commitments that exceed those required by law.”

After surveying nearly 1,600 business leaders around the world, the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) reported this fall that 92 percent of the respondents said their companies are addressing sustainability in some way. Corporate interest in sustainability has remained strong even during the recession, BCG found, and there was a strong consensus among the business leaders it interviewed that companies “will play a key role in solving the long-term global issues related to sustainability.”

McKinsey & Company reports that in its annual survey of business leaders last year, “executives for the first time were more likely to view addressing social and political issues as an opportunity than as a risk.”

This view — social issues as opportunities — continued in this year’s survey (subscription may be required). McKinsey found:

"The financial crisis has increased the public’s expectations of business’s role in society. Most companies have maintained or increased their efforts to address sociopolitical issues, and many have already derived better-than-expected benefits from doing so.

"The 2009 survey supports their views: at companies with clear criteria about the business goals of their sociopolitical agendas, executives report a variety of business benefits, including access to new markets and improved operational and workforce efficiency."

Most executives polled by McKinsey believe that of all issues concerning the public, including health care and executive pay, climate change and other environmental issues are the most likely to attract the public attention and to affect shareholder value over the next five years.

In an interview with McKinsey, the CEO of Unilever, Paul Polman, describes the business case for becoming a “values-driven” company:

"It is very clear that this world has tremendous challenges. The challenges of poverty, of water, of global warming, climate change. And businesses like ours have a role to play in that. And frankly, to me, very appealing. We have every day, in our business, about two billion consumers that use our brands, and so [there is] a tremendous opportunity to touch many consumers. And if we do the right thing, leveraging that tremendous skill, we can actually make major progress in society.

"And we see the consumer asking for this, to be honest, in today’s environment. Again, the consumer’s trust in business, unfortunately, is lower than we would like it to be. And the standards that the consumer sets—the expectations, her own proactiveness and influencing with her purchase decisions, and her own beliefs—are only going to increase as we move forward, I believe. So, companies with a strong social mission will be companies that are more successful long term.

The evidence of a growing green marketplace is accumulating so fast, TIME believes we’re seeing “a new social contract among consumers, business and government”. I don’t know whether that contract really exists, but I am certain about one thing: It would be a very good thing if it did.

So let’s write one. Let’s invite corporations, governments and citizen-consumers to sign a win-win-win commitment. Its obligations would include these:

Government

Two of government’s biggest roles in building a green economy are as consumer and regulator. The federal government is so large a consumer of energy and products, ranging from battleships to paperclips, that it has the power by itself to create large sustained markets for green products. President Obama has flexed that power in his Oct. 5 executive order, which requires federal agencies to reduce their carbon emissions, use less energy and water, and comply with new sustainability requirements. Every state and local government in the United States should follow suit.

Governments at all levels should follow Wal-Mart’s example by greening their supply chains — i.e., requiring suppliers to comply with progressive standards that reduce their environmental footprints.

Federal, state and local governments can create their own social responsibility and sustainability plans and report progress annually with third-party verification. Among other things, these plans would detail how state and local governments are using their substantial existing authorities to promote sustainable practices in buildings (through building codes), power production (through utility regulation), transportation systems (through regional planning and the investment of federal transportation money) and urban design (through zoning, tax policies and infrastructure development).

Corporations

Despite the positive news from the business sector, corporations have a long way to go. The majority of respondents in the BCG survey said “their companies were not acting decisively to fully exploit the opportunities and mitigate the risks that sustainability presents.” More than 70 percent said their companies have not developed a clear business case for sustainability.

Contradicting the Siemens’ survey, BCG found that among the companies it surveyed, most sustainability actions are the minimum required by law. TIME’s poll found that 40 percent of the 1,000 largest companies in the United States have not created publicly available environmental policies; fewer than 8 percent use third parties to verify progress on their corporate social responsibility policies.

In the new social contract, every company hoping to earn the loyalty of green consumers would create and regularly publicize its corporate social responsibility and sustainability policies. Companies would set clear stretch goals for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, improving their resource efficiency (including water and energy), using recycled content in their products, and replacing high-carbon with low-carbon energy.

In addition to setting environmental standards for their suppliers, certifying their progress and reporting annually, corporations would develop green labels that disclose the life-cycle environmental footprints of their products. They’d avoid green-washing by following the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides on labeling.

And here’s a big one: Corporations would promise to adhere to the same environmental standards overseas that they use in the United States.

Citizen-Consumers

Consumers would favor green and socially responsible companies not only in their purchases, but also in their investment portfolios. They would pledge to conserve energy, to recycle and reuse, and to support local investments in mass transit, hiking-biking paths, urban forestation and smart growth.

Who would manage such a contract and how would it be enforced? I have no idea. But the federal government could help by finishing work on a system to track national progress on sustainable development – an exercise that has been underway for years in the White House. That system could include indicators of how government, business and citizen-consumers are meeting the terms of the new social contract.

The cap-and-trade bill being considered in Congress would be a game-changer in the economy, for the first time creating price signals that discourage consumers from purchases that contribute to global warming. We need that, but we need a deeper change, too – a signal that we’ve changed our world view and consumption ethic as well as our price signals.

We need a global movement in which good government, good business and good citizenship are mutually reinforcing, with verifiable commitments to environmental and social responsibility. That would indeed be revolutionary.

 

See also:

Road to Copenhagen: Doing the Climate Shuffle

Road to Copenhagen: Managing Risk

Road to Copenhagen: Re-Tooling Industry

Taking Personal Responsibility for Climate Change

Keeping Up With The Joneses to Save Energy

Psychologists Delve Into the Paradox of U.S. Concern but Inaction on Climate Change

 

Bill Becker is the Executive Director of the Presidential Climate Action Project.

What's the Chance of a Social Contract about Climate Change?

Bill (Becker), I see that the UK’s failing Prime Minister Gordon Brown apparently used the expression “social contract” today in a speech to finance ministers from the G20 group of countries meeting in St Andrews, Scotlan (Note 1). QUOTE: Prime Minister Gordon Brown suffered an embarrassing rebuff when he floated the prospect of a new tax worldwide, only to have it flatly and publicly rejected by the United States and other major financial players. .. Mr Brown raised it as one of several possibilities for achieving what he called a "social contract" between the big financial institutions and the public. .. But US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner flatly rejected the idea, as did Canadian finance minister Jim Flaherty. UNQUOTE.

I predict that your desire for a “social contract” between government, industry and consumers based upon the myth of human-made global climate change is also doomed to rejection, this time not by politicians but by consumers, especially those in developing economies. Consumers in China, India, etc. will reject it out of hand because of their aspirations for a more comfortable lifestyle. Consumers in the developed economies will reject it because they have no intention of giving up any of their present comfortable lifestyle. You’re ignoring human nature. Despite the efforts of politicians to get consumers to swallow the climate change propaganda, the UN’s Copenhagan Climate Change Conference will achieve nothing worthwhile.

NOTES:
1) see http://news.aol.co.uk/brown-red-faced-after-tax-plan/article/20091107140...

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnos(cep)tic

Copenhagen COnference is a Political Scam

Dear readers, what Bill Becker presents here regarding “global warming”, “climate”, “greenhouse gas emissions”, “high/low carbon energy”, etc. must be accepted on face value. He says with the utmost confidence QUOTE: It is very clear that this world has tremendous challenges. The challenges of .. global warming, climate change. UNQUOTE yet has no expertise in any of the many sciences involved in present research into global climate processes and drivers. He presents his opinions as though The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis is proven, yet most of the scientists involved in researching the subject admit freely that scientific uncertainty abounds. Billions are still being spent on research all over the globe in an effort to reduce these enormous uncertainties and this is likely to take decades.

Bill Becker may well be Executive Director of the Presidential Climate Action Project but this is because of his expertise as a climate scientist but because of his experience and ability as a communicator. His knowledge of global climates is second hand, as for any other lay person so if you wish to understand climate science go elsewhere and consider the (limited) understanding of specialists in the field. All that you can expect from Bill’s pronouncements are well presented opinions that are no more valid than those of any intelligent individual who has researched is politics.

Rather than merely talking about “uncertainties” more and more scientists are breaking the political taboo and exposing the flaws in The Hypothesis, despite the risk to their research funds. Dr. Jasper Kirkby experienced such a withdrawal of funds back in 1998 when he said of his planned CERN experiments into the Cosmic Ray Theory (Note 2) QUOTE: "The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century, " says Kirkby. "But we have yet to prove the relationship between the Sun's cosmic radiation and the formation of clouds." He points out that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature. UNQUOTE. His promised funding was then withdrawn and the CLOUD program delayed until 2006. The second (probably conclusive) phase started this year (CLOUD09), too late to have any influence on the decisions at Copenhagen. Despite that QUOTE Message in the CLOUD for Warmists: The end is near? UNQUOTE (Note 3).

The UN’s Climate Conference at Copenhagen has nothing to do with the impossible task of controlling global climates. All of the human-made global climate change propaganda that has been thrown at us by the IPCC is purely to scare people into thinking there is a problem where non exists. The main objective is to create acceptance of a mechanism for redistributing funds from the developed to the developing and under-developed global economies. A secondary objective is to develop a mechanism for establishing global government, the ambition of the UN since its inception.

The UN learned a lot from propaganda experts like Adolf Hitler (Note 5) QUOTE: “All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”. “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”. UNQUOTE.

Instead of accepting what non-scientist Bill Becker says, consider the words of knowledgeable climate research scientists like Dr. Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory, (Note 3) QUOTE: Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity, UNQUOTE.

NOTES:
1) see http://www.cudenver.edu/ACADEMICS/COLLEGES/SPA/FACULTYSTAFF/STAFF/Pages/...
2) see http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3124
3) see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/01/message-in-the-cloud-for-warmists-...
4) see http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnos(cep)tic

Re "The cap-and-trade bill

Re "The cap-and-trade bill being considered in Congress would be a game-changer in the economy, for the first time creating price signals that discourage consumers from purchases that contribute to global warming." These types of regulatory incentives differ from the type of voluntary measures that are discussed in this article. While the bill would create incentives to achieve the cap, it would also perversely subvert and undermine any efforts to achieve emissions beyond the cap. If individuals or corporations take unilateral action to reduce their carbon emissions, the allowances that would have otherwise been used to cover those emissions will still be allocated, and will allow someone else to increase their emissions by the same amount.

The Western Environmental Law Center and several collaborating institutions recently sent a letter to Senators Kerry and Boxer explaining this problem and outlining a legislative remedy that could help preserve the environmental integrity of complementary GHG-reduction programs.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options