Climate Change
LinkedIn Group ... Conscious Capitalism Movement

Joshua Abramson ... The Biggest Corporations Should be the Biggest Climate Defenders ... By John Hewson

Burgess COMMENTARY

Peter Burgess

Joshua Abramson Business Development | Strategy | E-Commerce | Foresight | Marketing | Consulting | I Love You for Business Expert

The Biggest Corporations Should be the Biggest Climate Defenders

I've written on this topic often (my post is linked below). With all due respect, Charles Krauthammer is 65, John Howard is 76. This is not their problem, as they'll be dead when the full impact of their generation's selective blindness is felt by our children. I much prefer the pragmatism of Yvon Chouinard over the agnostics anyday: 'We’re in denial that each and every one of us is the problem. And until we face up to that, nothing’s going to happen.' https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/were-denial-each-every-one-us-problem-joshua-abramson

Why there’s no room for agnostics in the climate change debate

agenda.weforum.org•There is growing recognition by financial institutions that loans and investments may be overexposed to the risks of climate chang

Why there’s no room for agnostics in the climate change debate By John Hewson Jul 30 2015 Comments 439Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)439215Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)215195Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)195 On a recent 14.5-hour flight from Los Angeles to Sydney, I had time to read the columnist Charles Krauthammer’s collection of essays, Things that Matter. It made for a disturbing flight. I have enjoyed Krauthammer’s writing over the years, but there was something in his book that I found deeply troubling: his description of himself as an “agnostic” on climate change. He “believes instinctively that it can’t be very good to pump lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” and yet he “is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.” The word that I found most galling was “agnostic” – not only because Krauthammer is a trained scientist, but also because the word was used repeatedly by former Australian Prime Minister John Howard when he addressed a group of climate-change deniers in London in late 2103. “Part of the problem with this debate,” Howard told the assembled skeptics, “is that to some of the zealots involved their cause has become a substitute religion.” As Howard and Krauthammer should know, the subject of climate change is not a matter of religion, but of science. According to a 2013 survey of peer-reviewed publications on the subject, some 97% of scientists endorse the position that humans are causing global warming. Anyone familiar with the scientific process is aware that researchers are trained to disagree, to contest one another’s hypotheses and conclusions. A consensus of such magnitude is as close as we ever get to a recognized scientific fact. Given that even Krauthammer concedes that pumping the atmosphere full of carbon dioxide “can’t be very good,” the next logical step in the debate is to determine the best way to address the problem. As an economist, I favor an auction-based cap-and-trade system to put a price on carbon. But I also understand the potential usefulness of regulatory measures like targets for renewable energy, bans on incandescent light bulbs, and mandates for the use of biofuels. What I cannot accept is for somebody who offers no solutions to claim that those of us who do are “talking through our hats.” Fortunately, voices like Krauthammer’s are becoming increasingly rare. To be sure, there are still holdouts, like Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who replaced a carbon tax with a plan to tax the country’s citizens in order to pay polluters to cut emissions. As a policy, this is inequitable, inefficient, and unlikely to lower emissions at a pace that is sufficient to meet the conditions of the global climate-change agreement expected to be reached in Paris in December. A sure sign of a shift in mentality is the growing recognition by financial institutions that loans and investments may be overexposed to the risks of climate change. These risks include natural disasters, more extreme weather, efforts by governments to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, and the knock-on effect of a technological revolution in renewables, energy efficiency, and alternative technologies. According to the Asset Owners Disclosure Project, which I chair, the top 500 global asset owners are alarmingly exposed to the dangers of climate change. More than half of their investments are in industries exposed to the dangers of climate change; less than 2% are in low-carbon intensive industries. As a result, there is a risk that their investments and holdings will become “stranded,” as changes in policy or market conditions cut the value of infrastructure, other property, and fossil-fuel reserves. As Hank Paulson, Secretary of the US Treasury when the global financial crisis erupted in 2008, once warned, the risks of a climate-induced financial crisis would dwarf those of the sub-prime crisis. The price of coal, for example, has plunged to around half of its peak level, with plenty of room remaining on the downside. Consequently, shares in coal companies have fallen by as much as 90%, leaving asset owners scrambling to divest. By contrast, investing in a company like Tesla Motors – which has now developed a rechargeable battery for home use, which could lead to a sharp increase in the number of households switching to solar power – looks far more attractive. As this realization percolates through the market, asset owners are hedging their bets by increasing their investments in low-carbon industries and companies like Tesla. Over time, this will have a significant effect on the allocation of global investment funds. Krauthammer may think that I am talking through my hat, but I am confident that soon enough he – and those who listen to him – will be eating theirs. This article is published in collaboration with Project Syndicate. Publication does not imply endorsement of views by the World Economic Forum. To keep up with the Agenda subscribe to our weekly newsletter. Author: John Hewson, a former leader of Australia’s Liberal Party, is Chair of the Asset Owners Disclosure Project. Image: Splinters of ice peel off from one of the sides of the Perito Moreno glacier in a process of a unexpected rupture during the southern hemisphere’s winter months, near the city of El Calafate in the Patagonian province of Santa Cruz, southern Argentina, July 7, 2008. REUTERS/Andres Forza. Posted by John Hewson - 10:17 All opinions expressed are those of the author. The World Economic Forum Blog is an independent and neutral platform dedicated to generating debate around the key topics that shape global, regional and industry agendas.

Options menu Joshua Abramson Business Development | Strategy | E-Commerce | Foresight | Marketing | Consulting | I Love You for Business Expert 3 days ago The Biggest Corporations Should be the Biggest Climate Defenders I've written on this topic often (my post is linked below). With all due respect, Charles Krauthammer is 65, John Howard is 76. This is not their problem, as they'll be dead when the full impact of their generation's selective blindness is felt by our children. I much prefer the pragmatism of Yvon Chouinard over the agnostics anyday: 'We’re in denial that each and every one of us is the problem. And until we face up to that, nothing’s going to happen.' https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/were-denial-each-every-one-us-problem-joshua-abramson Why there’s no room for agnostics in the climate change debate agenda.weforum.org•There is growing recognition by financial institutions that loans and investments may be overexposed to the risks of climate change, writes John Hewson. Comment(6)Like(1)FollowReport spam Joshua Abramson likes this Joshua Abramson Sanjay Kapoor The magnitude and impacts of climate change is scary. And when we are scared, we do not exercise our best thinking. 2 days ago Like(1)Reply privatelyReport spam Joshua Abramson Joshua Abramson Excellent point, Sanjay Kapoor. It's the reason why I post what I do. Knowledge is power; once we are conscious, we can make different, more optimal choices instead of being run by fear in the background. I feel strongly that disruptive technologies and a shift in investment from fossil fuels, coal et al to zero carbon ones will be driven by our behaviors, shape the marketplace and undo a great deal of the damage. I love you! 2 days ago Like(0)Reply privatelyReport spam Joshua Abramson Sanjay Kapoor I think we need disruptive thinking and reflection, more than disruptive technologies. The idea that we permit the existence and supremacy of an economic model which degrades social and natural capital is now utterly incomprehensible to me. And yet, I have been part of this world and contributed to it. So I must start with forgiveness - first for myself and then for others. 2 days ago Like(1)Reply privatelyReport spam Joshua Abramson Joshua Abramson Disruptive technologies is a funny concept: petroleum was a disruptive technology 100 years ago. 'Wind' and 'solar' are now disruptive technologies, yet have been harnessed for millenia: http://energyinformative.org/the-history-of-solar-energy-timeline/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wind_power I love you. 2 days ago Like(0)Reply privatelyReport spam Joshua Abramson Rick O'Brien I have found climate change to be an extremely divisive topic. I believe this is because it touches on just about every aspect of human life: economics, politics, religion, freedom of choice, education...the list is endless. What is needed -- immediately -- is a new economic model that is not based on continued growth. One of those proposing and working on solutions is economist and futurist Jeremy Rifkin. Here is a link to his website: http://www.foet.org/JeremyRifkin.htm 4 hours ago Like(0)Reply privatelyReport spam Peter Burgess I first became really aware of the link between industry and pollution in the 1950s when the UK experienced what was referred to as a 'killer SMOG' (I think 1955). That was the end of coal fires in the English home. Later Los Angeles became known for its SMOG linked to automobile emissions and emission controls for the California and the USA were instituted. Acid rain has been linked back to high sulphur emissions in power plants, and this has been addressed. Freon and ozone issues in the upper atmosphere has been linked to aerosols and air conditioning .. and that has been better managed. (I worked at a company called Aerosol Techniques in the 1960s!) ... but CO2 is somehow different. CO2 is colorless, odorless, and a part of everyday life ... in fact plants need CO2 and greenhouse operators sometimes use CO2 generators to improve the yield. However the experimental science is clear that CO2 is associated with change in the heat cycle of planet earth. I attended a lecture by a Cambridge researcher on ice cap melt in Greenland over 25 years ago. Some of my college contemporaries explored in Greenland over 50 years ago. He demonstrated the extent of the melt at that time, and opened a discussion about what this fresh water was going to do the water flows around the Caribbean and the North Atlantic including the very important Gulf Stream. Fast forward ... James Hansen and others have published a new paper in the last few weeks which is very very disturbing, yet probably quite likely given the accumulation of data that now exists. I have pulled out some of the Hansen material into this simple slideset ... easier to read than the complete Hansen et al paper. http://www.slideshare.net/PeterBurgess2/risk-p314-climate-change-hansen-et-al-predictions-2015-150814 We measure money profit performance of the economy with considerable rigor ... but it is amazing how little we do to measure and account for the impact economic activity is having on the state of both people and planet. Modest change is not going to be good enough ... some very big change is vital 1 second ago Like(0)Delete