The UNFCCC has released the negotiating text for Copenhagen, which is the first time this has been done. It's a 52 page document, which is fully available here:andI have extracted some of the key text below, which shows the many options that are on the table. These include (Para 12, Option 2) "Stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere well below 350 ppm CO2eq and a temperature increase limited to below 1.5oC above the pre-industrial level. For for this purpose, the Parties {shall}{should} collectively reduce global emissions by {81-71}{more than 85} per cent from 1990 levels by 2050."If this is what we collectively want to push for, we can now refer to our desire outcome as "Paragraph 12, Option 2" Paragraph 14 also opens the door to up to a 45% cut by 2020, and more than 95% by 2050. 11. The shared vision includes a long-term aspirational global goal for emission reductions that is based on science and provides direction to long-term cooperative action, making it sufficiently effective to bring about the deep cuts in global emissions required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention {and minimize further climate change impacts on vulnerable developing countries}.12. The long-term global goal for emission reductions {shall}{should} be setOption 1 as a stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at {400}{450 or lower}{not more than 450}{450} ppm carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq) and a temperature increase limited to 2oC above the pre-industrial level. For this purpose, the Parties {shall}{should} collectively reduce global emissions by at least 50 per cent {from 1990} levels by 2050.Option 2 as a stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere well below 350 ppm CO2eq and a temperature increase limited to below 1.5oC above the pre-industrial level. For for this purpose, the Parties {shall}{should} collectively reduce global emissions by {81-71}{more than 85} per cent from 1990 levels by 2050.Option 3 as a global temperature increase limited to 2oC above the pre-industrial level.Option 4 as a reduction in global average GHG emissions per capita to about 2 t CO2.Option 5 on the basis of: Option 5.1 historical responsibility. Option 5.2 emissions debt. Option 5.3 per capita accumulative emission convergence. Option 5.4 an equitable allocation of the global atmospheric resources.13. Emission pathways towards the long-term global goal for emission reductions require that global GHG emissions peak {between 2010 and 2013}{by 2015}{by 2020 at the latest}{in the next 10-15 years}{in the next 10-20 years} and decrease thereafter.14. To this end, {developed country Parties} {Parties included in Annex I to the Convention (Annex I Parties)} {developed country Parties included in Annex II to the Convention (Annex II Parties)}, as a group, {shall}{should} reduce their GHG emissions:(a) {By at least 25-40}{By 25-40}{By more than 25-40}{In the order of 30}{By at least 40}{by 45}{by at least 45} per cent from 1990 levels by 2020, {with further reductions to be achieved through policies and measures that promote sustainable lifestyles};(b) {And {by more than 95}{in the range of 75-85} per cent by 2050}.15. Supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building from developed country Parties, the GHG emissions of {developing country Parties}{Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention (non-Annex I Parties)}, as a group, {shall}{should}:(a) {{Significantly deviate from the baseline by 2020} {Deviate in the order of 15-30 per cent below the baseline by 2020}};(b) {And be reduced by 25 per cent from 2000 levels by 2050}16. Option 1 The Parties shall periodically review the overall progress towards the ultimate objective of the Convention and actions related to mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation, in the light of {the best available scientific information}{an assessment of climate change and its impacts} {intergovernmental scientific} as well as relevant technical, social and economic information, and taking account of observed impacts and efforts made to adapt to climate change, including a comprehensive review not later than 2016, incorporating consideration of future emission reduction requirements and targets in the light of the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC.17. Option 2 (in the case of a long-term global goal as defined in para. 12, option 3, above) The long-term global goal for emission reductions {shall}{should} be updated to reflect progress in scientific knowledge. To allow for these updates, the 2oC goal {shall}{should} be broken down into partial targets: initially, a 0.2oC temperature increase per decade over 10 decades. Every 10 years, the partial target {shall}{should} be evaluated, with a view to possibly redefining it, taking into account advances in scientific knowledge and the reduction of uncertainties.
It is the summer of 2010, and consumers across North America are on the lookout for a new green logo in shop windows and retailers’ catalogues. It’s a large 12 inch high circular sticker containing the words “Climate Change. YES - We’re Part of the Solution” – you can’t miss it, once you’ve seen it.
To win the right to display the sticker, a business must demonstrate that it has measured its carbon footprint; developed a strategy to reduce it; engaged its staff; informed its customers; and made measurable progress towards its goal.
The stickers include a small white circle that says “7%”, or “48%”, depending on the level of carbon reduction a business has achieved compared to its initial baseline. The race is on to reach 100%. Carbon offsets are not allowed – it must be a real reduction, including the transport used to ship goods.
Is this fantasy, or a realistic insight into what’s coming? My personal hunch is that it’s only a matter of time before it’s a reality.
In 2007, a business-supported initiative called Climate Counts launched a sophisticated scorecard that ranks 56 of the world’s top corporations for their contribution to climate change solutions, indicating whether they are Stuck, Starting, or Striding.
In the first year, Burger King and Wendy’s scored “Stuck”, with zero points out of 100. Amazon and CBS also scored absolute zeros. Levi Strauss managed just 1, while the best that Apple and eBay could muster was 2. Canon came top with 77, followed by Nike on 73, Unilever 71, and IBM 70. As well as actual carbon reduction, the scoring includes points for whether the companies have supported progressive climate legislation.
In the 2008 Scorecard, Burger King still scored 0, along with Wendy’s and the Jones Apparel Group (Anna Klein, Nine West, and many other brands). Amazon and eBay improved to 5, Apple to 11, CBS to 15, and Levi Strauss to 22. At the top end, Nike moved into the lead with a score of 82, followed by Stonyfield Farm 78, IBM 77, and Canon 74.
Overall, the corporations’ scores improved by an average of 22%, which speaks either to a deep commitment to change, or to the power of public shaming and reward, available for the whole world to see at www.climatecounts.org.
This begs the question - do consumers care whether a business is taking action on climate change, or are they just looking for a bargain?
In May, Havas Media asked this very question in a global market study with 11,000 participants in nine countries around the world. They found that 79% of those surveyed would rather spend their money with companies and brands that are working to reduce their environmental impact, and 89% would actively seek to do just this in the year ahead. Over 80% of the respondents said that they would buy more green goods if they were on offer, and 35% said they would be willing to pay more for them.
The big surprise in the survey, apart from the high level of consumer desire to see action, was that consumers in Brazil, Mexico, India and China were more alarmed by climate change, and more willing to pay more for climate-friendly products than consumers in the USA, Britain, and Germany. (Canada was not included in the survey). For any company with aspirations towards global trade, this should serve as a wake-up call.
The other surprise (or maybe not) was that only 11% of those surveyed thought their governments were doing enough to tackle climate change. The flipside of this is a strong desire for business to step up to the plate and show that it is taking the lead.
Most companies are still asleep at the switch, however. In Britain, in 2006, a survey by The Carbon Trust found that 74% of people thought businesses were not doing enough to cut their carbon emissions and tackle climate change.
What kind of initiative are companies taking?
Smaller companies can contribute just as much as larger ones. In Philadelphia, where the owner of the AOK Auto Body Shop changed light bulbs, installed motion sensors, put timers on equipment, switched to Energy Star appliances, and trained his staff to turn the lights off, he is reducing his emissions while saving $5,577 a year on a $7,832 investment.
The days of voluntary action may soon be over. In Britain, starting in 2010, all quoted companies will be obliged to disclose their carbon emissions in their annual reports, and their performances will be compared in an annual league table summarizing the best and worst performers. It is only a matter of time before this becomes normal practice – and before those bright green stickers begin appearing in shop windows.
Guy Dauncey is President of the BC Sustainable Energy Association, and author of the award-winning book Stormy Weather: 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change. He lives in Victoria.
First Published in Business in Vancouver, June 2008
