Today starts a two-day conference in Sydney. This conference has come together to talk about how industry leaders can be relied upon to voluntarily slash emissions blamed for heating the earth's atmosphere.
The argument about this conference from both sides is as follows:
The countries represented in Australia state: enforcing mandatory cuts in emissions will harm their economies by driving up the price of commodities like coal and oil, while simply driving polluting industries to other countries not covered by the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, industry will regulate itself without specific targets or taxes on the amount of carbon they pump into the atmosphere.
Why would industry do this? Well U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman says, "I believe that the people who run the private sector, who run these companies, they do have children, they do have grandchildren, they do live and breathe in the world."
To me, that seems like a pretty poor reason. The board members and stock holders don't want to give up any money, especially when it comes to the environment. Americans live in the moment. And right now the environment is not bad from where they are standing. So what if their kids have to deal with environmental problems. That isn't until 'later' and when 'later' comes, then we will deal with it.
The other side states: Allowing businesses to regulate themselves under a voluntary code could lead to patchy compliance.
I think that is a fair statement. Companies that are socially aware are more likely to take action. The majority of companies won't do anything until their bottom line is being affected. This is a reactive world, not a pro-active one. The environment is not screaming in their face, therefore it can be ignored.
Environmentalists have branded the meeting a stunt to divert attention from the U.S. and Australian governments' refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol, which legally binds countries to targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2012.
I am not sure on this one, but I do believe that the government must play a role in curbing the emissions of our nation. The government must help fund the high-risk R&D, so that new technologies can be discovered. The government must set the minimum standards, so that the slackers will do something. I do not think the government must set an example. It might help, but most people are used to hearing the government say something and then doing something different. Therefore the government actions are a nice touch, but not necessary.
The biggest question that needs to be addressed is, without targets and without economic incentives, why would anyone invest in clean technologies when they cost more? Will we learn the answers to this, this week? Probably not. Which might make the skeptics claim that this is all just a stunt to divert attention from the governments who have refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, a point to ponder.
My thoughts are that not all clean technologies will cost a company money. Most of the companies that are curbing their emissions now, are doing so to save money. Most technologies implemented will pay the company back in energy savings. As the price of fuel, clean-up, waste disposal, and other services climb, then it will become easier for companies to justify the cost of changing their habitats. To get them to curb their habitats before hand, will be like beating your head against a wall...pointless.
Sources:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/3579588.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4602296.stm
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Friday, January 06, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
