A new global deal to tackle climate change will not only be good for business, it is crucial to achieve sustainable growth for the global economy.
As we approach the global climate talks in Copenhagen next month, much debate has focused on the supposed conflicting interests of big business and the climate. This argument is based on the idea that business does not like change, and in particular does not like change brought about by government policy or regulation.
This is a grave misconception, and also underestimates the gravity of the choices we face as business people and citizens.
But business thrives on change. Today’s large companies were once only a few people who saw an opportunity arise, new demand that would grow, a change that made something new possible.
Many opportunities were created by new technologies, from the internal combustion engine to the microchip. Some of these were driven by demand, food production for example, and many of the most revolutionary were supported by well-designed government policy, such as the construction of railways and the rapid development of mobile telephony. When these three forces align, economic change accelerates and so does economic growth and wealth creation.
A major shift in the economy requires all three. The agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, the technology revolution — all provided enormous opportunity, and government played a key role in each by reacting quickly to put the policy structures in place to support those changes.
The low-carbon revolution is next. New businesses are already emerging all over the world, focused on low-carbon solutions to energy generation and use — from light bulbs to transport — but they are still at the pioneering stage.
To create some certainty and achieve the scale of investment necessary to make a major change in our economic direction, it must be clear to business that political leaders from developed and developing countries alike are committed to this course. Inaction or delay would be disastrous for the climate, but it would also be disastrous economically.
With a clear commitment to the low-carbon industrial revolution, businesses around the world, large or small, can compete with confidence, invest with certainty and drive the scale and innovation necessary to make the changes we need to make. The result will be job creation, investment opportunities and a new direction for industry.
The effort requires significant investment, not least in infrastructure development in both the developed and developing world. Fundamentally, this is changing the way we invest and changing the direction of the economy so that we can grow sustainably on the low-carbon path.
For example, in the US, energy efficiency measures alone can save more than US$1 trillion while driving job creation and growth in the short term, aiding economic recovery and providing the economic stimulus required to accelerate investment in low-carbon energy generation and use.
Specifically, a global agreement at Copenhagen can deliver three things for business:
• A clear commitment to emission reduction targets in the developed and developing world to drive technology investment and energy efficiency measures.
• A clear commitment to the global pricing of carbon that allows businesses to invest with confidence and at the scale required.
• A deal that supports, through a mixture of public and private financing, the infrastructure required to shift to a low-carbon economy.
With these straightforward principles at its core, a global deal signed in Copenhagen can fire the starting pistol for the new industrial revolution, the low-carbon revolution, creating significant growth, job creation and economic development throughout the world.
At this time of financial turmoil, a global deal in Copenhagen needs to bring world leaders together in a strong, clear message to business: Follow the low carbon path, we will support you all the way.
Lars G. Josefsson, president and CEO of Vattenfall, Europe’s fifth-largest generator of electricity, is a member of the UN secretary-general’s Advisory Group on Energy and Climate; Jamshyd N. Godrej is chairman of Godrej & Boyce, one of India’s largest engineering and consumer products companies, and a former president of the Confederation of Indian Industry; Peter A. Darbee is chairman of the board, chief executive officer and president of PG&E Corporation; Steve Holliday is chief executive of National Grid, which owns the high-voltage electricity transmission network in England and Wales and operates the system across Great Britain.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS