Saving the planet is a worthy goal, but corporate America also sees that there is money to be made in the fight against global warming.
First, however, the US business world needs its skeptical government to pave the legal and regulatory path to climate riches.
Former Federal Reserve vice chairman Roger Ferguson, who is now a top executive at insurance giant Swiss Re, spelt out the case for government action at a climate change conference of global legislators held at the US Senate on Tuesday.
"Only a long-term policy framework provides the incentives to the business community that we are eager and willing [to pursue]," he said.
As Ferguson noted, the insurance industry is as vulnerable as any sector to the intensifying storms that scientists say are a devastating offshoot of climate change.
In 2005, insurers paid out a record-breaking US$78 billion to victims of natural disasters worldwide, including US$45 billion for Hurricane Katrina alone.
Corporate bosses noted the EU's pioneering experience in setting up a market to "cap and trade" emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Under this system, which has had a volatile two years in existence, EU companies trade excess emissions of greenhouse gases among themselves with the aim of slashing overall levels.
Such schemes are already being used experimentally by California and northeast US states, while the US leads the world in research into renewable energy sources.
"We believe that the time has come for America to adopt a market-based approach. We believe that cap and trade is just that," said Rick Lazio, a former congressman who is now a senior vice president at JPMorgan Chase.
According to the World Bank, the world carbon market is estimated to have been worth US$25 billion to US$30 billion last year, rising to US$40 billion a year by 2010.
But for the emissions scheme to go truly global, the Republican administration of US President George W. Bush would have to shed its opposition to binding greenhouse limits on industry.
The Washington forum was an informal attempt by legislators from rich nations, and major developing nations like China and India, to craft the outlines of a global-warming pact to succeed the Kyoto treaty after 2012.
Bush has refused to adopt Kyoto, arguing that the economic costs would be crippling and that the science behind global warming remained unclear.
But speaker after speaker at the forum, including Republican presidential hopeful John McCain, lined up to argue that climate change is real and risks becoming an irreversible disaster without action now.
"The business community really wants to be at the table, with the right options," said Steve Howard, chief executive of the Climate Group, a non-profit outfit promoting corporate and government cooperation on the issue.
But Howard stressed that businesses will need a long-term policy framework that covers the next four to five decades to provide justification for the vast investments that are needed now in clean technologies.
Virgin Group tycoon Sir Richard Branson was also at the forum, after last week launching a US$25 million prize to inspire innovators to develop a way to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
He noted that Virgin Atlantic wants an industry pact to tow planes to and from runways, so they can cut the time their engines are running and limit jet-fuel emissions.
Planes could carry 6 tonnes less of fuel on each journey and 80 percent of local airport pollution would be eliminated, the British entrepreneur said.
But Virgin is "having hell" to persuade other airlines of the scheme's merit, he told the forum.
"It does seem it needs government sticks, as well as just leaving it up to companies to do it themselves," he said.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath