Climate Change - the real priorities of big business

Tuesday, January 17, 2006, 21:38
Government leaders at the Sydney meeting of the new six-nation Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, say we can trust big business to reduce greenhouse gases without regulations or binding targets (Sydney Morning Herald, 12 Jan 06). This is more a declaration of surrender than a demonstration of trust. The genuine commitment of big business is belied by their recent history of denying problems such as global warming and opposing fuel efficiency standards.Perhaps the best indicator of the changes big business envisages in the area of transport, a major contributor to greenhouse gases, is a report prepared on behalf of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Mobility 2030. The report was written by the experts from twelve companies: eight major car companies (General Motors, Toyota, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Honda, Nissan, Renault and Volkswagen); two major oil companies (Shell and BP); the Michelin tyre company; and a Norwegian aluminium company which supplies car makers.The report admits that "the way contemporary society moves people and goods is not sustainable indefinitely". It found that if present trends continue transport-related greenhouse gases will grow significantly and so it recommends ways to reduce these gases as well as other pollutants.However, their recommendations for achieving these goals involve the purchase of more cars over time, not less. They recommend technological fixes for motor vehicles and more roads, rather then expansion of public transport or changes to land-use planning that might reduce motor vehicle travel.The report argues that emissions of conventional pollutants will be reduced as the existing fleet is progressively renewed, new technologies are developed to control emissions, two-stroke engines are replaced "by more economical, cleaner four-stroke engines", new fuels developed and adopted such as unleaded petrol. As far as greenhouse gases go, "Only the successful development and general adoption of a number of advanced technologies - about which much remains to be learned - will achieve this goal." And even then governments and individuals would have to be committed to buying the new vehicles. Win-win for the motor vehicle industry - more sales of cars!The report argues that mobility divides, that is the gap between those who have easy access to mobility and those who have poor access, inhibit economic growth and therefore governments should build more roads and encourage the production of cheaper motor vehicles. The report admits: "Narrowing mobility divides in these ways might increase transport-related GHG's."The point is that businesses are only willing to adopt new technologies or promote solutions if they can make money out of them. Otherwise such solutions can only be achieved through government action and regulation. And while there are a few technological changes that can reduce greenhouse emissions cheaply and profitably, there are many more existing technologies that are both polluting and highly profitable. One relevant example is the four wheel drive or sports utility vehicle (SUV), from which companies such as Ford make around half their total profits. At the recent Detroit motor show Ford unveiled its 6.7 metre ute with a V10 engine, said to be inspired by a locomotive.SUV sales have caused the average fuel efficiency of the car fleet to decline rather than improve over the past two decades. While car companies get green reputations by producing a few green cars they make their big profits by producing large numbers of "gas guzzling" SUVs. In fact Toyota's carbon emissions grew faster than other car manufacturers during the 1990s (by 72 percent) because of its production of increasing numbers of SUVs and despite its production of the popular hybrid petrol-electric Prius.

Whilst car companies remain committed to manufacturing ever more powerful and energy consuming vehicles, oil companies remain committed to ever increasing production and usage of oil and gas. Companies such as BP and Shell, which have invested a miniscule amount of their budgets in solar energy, continue to focus most of their efforts and make most of their profits on expanding sales of fossil fuels.

At the end of last year the Federal High Court in Nigeria ruled that gas flaring by oil and gas companies, including Shell, should be stopped as it violates constitutional rights to life and dignity. The gas flaring causes people to be exposed to toxic chemicals. And even though not flaring would be an easy way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions the ruling has been contested by Shell. Yet Shell is often cited as one of the more socially responsible oil companies.