Science & Technology CLIMATE: Business grapples with potential changes By Vanessa Houlder in Buenos Aires
A year ago, many US businesses rejected the idea that there was a need for any action on climate change. Now, as diplomats gather in Buenos Aires for climate change negotiations, the emphasis of some prominent companies - including car, oil and chemical businesses - is on how to deal with it.
"The momentum has shifted to companies that accept the science. There is no question about it," says Eileen Claussen, executive director of the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change. This organisation, which is calling for US leadership on the issue of climate change, was established in May with members that include Air Products and Chemicals, Baxter International, Boeing, Enron and 3M.
The Buenos Aires meeting is an attempt at fleshing out the treaty agreed last December in Kyoto, Japan, at which developed countries made a legally binding agreement to cut back their emissions of greenhouse gases from 1990 levels by 2010.
"There is clearly a move. Companies are really thinking hard about what all this means," says Paul Faeth, programme director of the World Resources Institute, an environmental think-tank that has teamed up with General Motors, Monsanto and British Petroleum in a collaboration called Safe Climate, Sound Business (SCSB).
The SCSB argues that there is no inherent conflict between economic development and a healthy environment. "For proactive leaders there are major business opportunities in meeting the climate change, if the policy environment is right," it says.
The SCSB initiative states that "climate change is a cause for concern and precautionary action is justified now". But, among its members there are a wide range of views.
BP, for example, has set itself an internal target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 10 per cent by 2010, exceeding the Kyoto average. GM, however, is opposed to the Kyoto protocol and remains a member of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a vociferous opponent of taking action on stabilising greenhouse gas emissions on present scientific evidence.
GM argues: "We engage in dialogue with groups that have differing points of view in order to learn and to contribute to the discussions." Unless it participates in the debate on climate change, GM fears that "command-and-control" regulations would be imposed on it.
One of the main goals of groups such as Pew and SCSB is to influence policy. The Pew Group, for example, is pressing for congressional legislation on a domestic "early action" programme that will ensure that companies get credit for greenhouse gas reductions before an international framework is in place.
But companies are also mindful of the impact that membership of these organisations has on their public image. For multinational companies, this can present a difficult dilemma, since attitudes of customers differ across the world.
The GCC has dismissed the launch of groups such as Pew and SBSC as an exercise in public relations. "Pew and SCSB are viewed as progressive and constructive. But, with some exceptions, there is no difference between what we say and what they say," says William O'Keefe, former chairman of the GCC.
"A lot of people are trying to create a false momentum by saying that American business is now taking climate change seriously," he says.
For once, many environments would agree with Mr O'Keefe. The greening of American boardrooms will be demonstrated by deeds and not words. But as Mr Faeth of WRI argues, sooner or later there will be action on the climate because "companies have a responsibility to shareholders" to be ready for it.