The article in the url below, in a nutshell, demonstrates everything that is wrong with our collective response to climate change. The article reports on the annual survey of confidence among political and business leaders in advance of the annual get-together at Davos:
"Every year the World Economic Forum asks 1,000 business, policy and thought leaders to rank about 30 risks facing the world by both impact and likelihood. In this year's report, … climate-related risks top the list."
This is not surprising. Climate change has apparently been on the minds of these leaders for a while now:
"While some risks come and go with the headlines, climate has been rising steadily through the ranks and has led the list of the past three years."
So, this is good, right? While climate change is broadly recognized as a problem, however, it is not a problem anyone wants to do anything about:
"If the first step to solving a problem is admitting you have a problem, this should mean climate change is well on its way to being solved. The reason it isn't is that the world is much readier to admit climate change is a problem than to do anything about it. This is especially true of businesses in the U.S., many of which claim concern about climate change then fight solutions that hit their bottom line."
In particular, the challenge becomes evident when you look at the short-term ranking of concerns for this same group:
"Asked additionally to rank only short-term risks, respondents ranked climate only 11th, well behind economic conflict between big countries, protectionism, and cyberattacks."
In other words, they recognize climate change as a problem in a long-term philosophical sense, but not in a short-term practical sense. The result is that there is much discussion and collective concern about the problem, and very little action. This paradox becomes all too apparent when you look at the divide between what is being done and what needs to be done:
"It is not that policy makers are doing nothing. On the contrary, the World Bank counted 47 carbon-tax or emissions-trading programs around the world [in 2018] covering roughly 15% of annual greenhouse-gas emissions. When China kicks off its emissions-trading system [in 2020], that should rise to 20%. The problem is that these schemes don't go far enough. The vast majority charge a small fraction of the $40 to $80 per ton of carbon dioxide the World Bank says will keep emissions on track with levels agreed to in the Paris accord. The reason is to avoid a backlash from taxpayers and businesses."
The hypocrisy becomes even more apparent when you look at specific examples:
"Even the oil industry is coming around: BP PLC, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC have thrown their support behind a carbon tax proposed by the Climate Leadership Council, a bipartisan advocacy group, that would be revenue neutral. … Yet when a revenue-neutral carbon tax was put before Washington state in a 2016 ballot initiative, the oil industry declined to support it. The initiative was defeated."
Take care
David
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
Climate Change Alarms Business, to a Point
By Greg Ip
January 17, 2019
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
A2
