Global Business Opposes Climate Action. *Not*!

Corporations call for a clear carbon price, as new report shows companies are taking the threat of climate change seriously.

You probably won’t hear President Obama or Governor Romney detail carbon-reduction plans any time soon. But top-flight business leaders from around the world got together yesterday via video-conference to rally behind carbon regulation, saying there’s only so much they can do themselves: Putting a price on carbon would provide the clearest incentive for businesses to compete aggressively to reduce pollution.

 

Participants in the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) Global Climate Change Forum—which included representatives from the World Bank, the International Energy Agency, L’Oreal, and Tata Steel—connected six cities around the world and was broadcast live online, at one point trending on Twitter. CDP chairman Paul Dickinson took the opportunity to lay out a case for how a carbon price goes above and beyond what companies can do themselves.

“They want clarity on regulations,” Dickinson said in a Skype interview after the forum. He said businesses can do 20 percent of the work. The other eighty must come from government.

Dickinson issued a challenge to the world’s governments to meet their rhetoric to deliver a global agreement: “Most of the things that get done in the world get done by the world’s largest companies,” he said. “My point is that governments need to step up and match the operational domain of the corporations. That means international treaties.”

More than 80 percent of companies polled recognize climate change as a threat to their business.

A particularly popular moment for those commenting via Twitter was when Dickinson, from London, told the forum that the US should take charge: “The developed world has no moral authority to say that they can’t consume in the way that we do… if we don’t get leadership in your country, from the United States.”

A report released by the London-based non-profit Carbon Disclosure Project to coincide with the forum shows the world’s largest publicly listed companies are more concerned with climate change than ever, especially as a physical risk to international supply chains. For example, Spanish ultility Gas Natural SDG said extreme weather could damage their plants in the immediate future and interrupt gas and energy supplies, while sea level rise could affect coastal facilities in the future. Vale, a Brazilian mining company, has invested $8 million in weather-monitoring equipment to keep a vigilant eye.

The survey of the “Global 500” (the largest companies by market capitalization) showed more than 80 percent of responders recognizing climate change as a threat, with 37 percent seeing it as a real and present danger. That’s an increase of 10 percent since 2010.

CDP ranked the top ten respondents according to how well they communicated climate efforts to their investors. Bayer and Nestle topped that list.  Among companies that didn’t disclose information in the survey were Apple and Amazon:

Top performing companies according to the CDP Global 500 Climate Change Report 2012 Carbon Disclosure ProjectWhich companies share the most information with investors about climate change strategies? Here’s the list, according to the CDP Global 500 Climate Change Report 2012 Carbon Disclosure Project

Good news in the executive floors of global corporations, too: The report shows an overwhelming majority of survey respondents are putting climate change into their corporate strategies, a rise of 10 percent from last year to 83 percent; nearly all have given climate change a seat at the table in the form of a high-level executive who deals exclusively with sustainability or climate policy.

But “it’s not all good news,” said Jonathan Grant, sustainability director for PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the financial services firm headquarted in London that co-wrote the report. Although 82 percent of companies have set some form of reduction target, only one fifth of them have set targets to 2020 or beyond. Those that have set longer range targets are only reducing their emissions by around 1 percent per year on average—not enough, says Grant. Nearly a third of respondents reported no emissions reductions at all.

“Although companies are setting targets they’re not nearly ambitious enough,” he said. “And governments haven’t converted their grant statements that they’ve made in Rio and in Durban and in Copenhagen.”

Correction: The original version of this story misattributed the quote about America taking charge to another participant, Alan Brown from Schroders.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate