FREE ESSAY ON GLOBAL WARMING

GLOBAL WARMING

The humanity is currently facing one its biggest problem ever. Indeed, the Earth is
warming and consequences might be devastating for the future generations. There is a
general agreement among scientists that Earth's climate is being affected by industrial
society. Industry affects global climate by releasing greenhouse gases (GHGs). The most
significant GHG is carbon dioxide (CO2). While some GHGs occur naturally, others are
released in the atmosphere by certain human activities such as the burning of fossil
fuels, deforestation activities and some agricultural practices. These activities affect
climate by increasing the so-called 'greenhouse effect'. GHGs concentrate in the Earth's
atmosphere and trap heat by blocking some of the long-wave energy the Earth normally
radiates back to space. The effect is weather and climate changes. The potential
consequences include more extreme weather, dislocation of agricultural and commercial
activities, expansion of desert regions, a rise in sea levels, and damaged natural
habitats and ecosystems. All of these threaten the natural capital that provides the
economy's resource base. Mankind pours more than 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide each
year. If nothing is done, the total is expected to be 20 billion tons by 2050 .
Therefore, we must act now. Since the 1980's the global concern about climate change has
been rising and politics have begun to address the issue through international
co-operation. Nation states have set ambitious goals through the Kyoto protocol, but
international regulation is not an easy thing and the structure that rules it is perhaps
not well adapted for the issue of Climate Change. Even if the regulations are not yet
finalised, some companies recognise business reasons to reduce GHG emissions, which go
beyond the obvious concern of protecting the natural environment. The Gilette Company is
one of those that have taken measures to use energy in an efficient manner.
The first international conference on environment and development was the 'Rio Earth
Summit' in 1992, where the United Nations Framework Convention on climate Change (UNFCCC)
was created. Today, 181 governments and the European Union (EU) are parties to the
Convention. They meet regularly at the annual Conference of the Parties (COP), where they
review the implementation of the Convention and continue talks on the way to tackle
Climate Change. The Convention divides countries into 2 groups: the industrialised
countries who have contributed the most to climate change, and developing countries. The
result of the Rio Summit was a recommendation, a non-legally binding aim. The aim was for
industrialised countries to return their GHGs emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. But at
COP1 in 1995, the Parties decided that the commitments were not adequate. After 2 years
and a half of intense negotiations, the Kyoto protocol was adopted at COP3 in December
1997.
The Kyoto protocol set ambitious goals, legally binding targets. The objective is an
average of 5.2% reduction of carbon dioxide emissions to below 1990 levels by 2012. For
instances, the US committed itself to a reduction of 7%, the EU 8% and Japan 6%. The
treaty is planned to be ratified by 2002 and will enter into force after 55 countries
have ratified it. These countries must represent at least 55% of the emissions of
industrialised countries. But questions remained unanswered about what mechanisms had to
be implemented to reach the Kyoto target. Thus, the Parties committed themselves to find
an agreement on this issue at COP6 in November 2000.
COP6 took place in The Hague, The Netherlands. This summit was very important as, for
most parties, the decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol was greatly dependent on its
output. Three main issues had to be addressed. The first one was whether or not countries
could take into account 'carbon sinks'. Basically, some countries want to be allowed to
reduce their GHG emission target by planting trees, as trees absorb CO2. The second issue
was on the use of tradable emission permits and the third one on the penalty for
non-compliance. A significant number of delegates want no financial penalties. Instead,
their scheme would allow nations not in compliance by the end of the first phase
(2008-2012) to increase their second-phase target by the amount they missed their
phase-one target. Parties were divided on these issues and we could identify three main
clans. First, the 'Umbrella group', which includes the United States, Japan, Canada,
Russia, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland, and Ukraine. Their credo is to set up a
worldwide market of GHG emission rights. They also want importance to be attributed to
'carbon sinks'. The second clan is the European Union, who contests this position. For
the EU, emission rights should only be a supplement to a real effort by the countries to
reduce their emissions. It also opposes the Umbrella group on the importance to be given
to 'carbon sinks', which might play a smaller role than previously thought in the
absorption of carbon. The third clan is called G77 and is composed of 133 developing
countries. This group includes countries threatened by the rising seawater and poor
countries that want rich nations, the major polluters, to make the main efforts. The
developing countries are willing to make efforts but want financial and technical aids.
The OPEC countries are also part of this group and they want to get compensation, as
their economies are threatened by the Kyoto Protocol. Then, what was the output of COP6?
Nothing. Indeed, the divergences between the clans were too important and no agreement at
all was found. It is said that the main reason of this failure was the unrealistic target
of Kyoto. In fact, since emissions have increased 10 to 12% in the US since 1990,
emissions would have to be cut by about 25% by 2008. And many other countries have the
same problem. But it might not be the root cause...
Then what are the real causes of this clash? The first reason could be very well a crisis
of multilateralism. Indeed, The Hague is already the second big clash after the recent
one in Seattle for the WTO summit. In fact, the world is increasingly integrated and
connected and the framework that was established after the Second World War no longer
seems capable of finding solutions to the global problems. 'The international
superstructure that is supposed to enhance global governance [...] is creaking' (Larry
Elliot, Nov. 2000). It has certainly something to do with the growing power of corporate
capital and the decreasing effectiveness of politicians. The second reason of the COP6
clash might be the issue of the redistribution of the wealth of the world. The fact that
only 38 developed countries are bound by the protocol is the most contentious issue for
Americans. Indeed, while the industrial capacity of developed countries would decline,
the industrial capacity of developing countries would increase. The Americans are fairly
afraid of loosing their hegemony at the profit of countries like China or India. At last
the third, and certainly the principal reason of this failure, could be the Global
Governance issue. Indeed, first the UN would be able to dictate the fossil fuel energy
that a developed nation might use. Second, the UN would have the authority to enforce
compliance, using sanctions. During the COP6 summit, Jacques Chirac, president of France
and representing the EU at that time, held a speech in which he insisted on the fact that
the protocol is an important step toward 'authentic global governance'. He should have
been perhaps more moderate as it is precisely what the US does not want to hear.
Actually, the issue of empowering the UN has become more important than reducing
emissions.
At last, it is not possible to talk about environmental politics without mentioning
non-governmental organisations (NGOs), of which role is primarily to raise and publicise
issues. They have made a considerable impact on world environmental politics, and are now
granted observer rights at UN conferences. However, NGOs, like Greenpeace or Friends of
the Earth, are more and more disappointed by the hypocrisy and slowness of inter-state
co-operation. In fact, 'they often regard the nation state as part of the problem' (John
Vogler, p244), and they therefore prefer to encourage community action.
However, even though the international regulation on Climate Change is slow and
contentious, many individual companies have already begun to implement some programmes to
reduce GHGs emissions, by investing in more Energy Efficiency programmes and Green
Power.
Indeed, energy efficiency in business can lead to many competitive advantages. Measures
can be implemented in several areas: building and facilities; production processes;
end-use products; and transportation. These sectors provide many opportunities for
cutting costs, increasing profits and enhancing the image of companies. Some ways to save
energy include installing efficient lighting, capturing and reusing waste heat,
insulating buildings and computerising heating and cooling systems. These kinds of
programmes are almost risk-free and can provide high returns. Moreover, benefits can be
easily measured, calculated and forecasted. In fact, energy efficiency is one of the most
effective means to reduce costs and add value to a firm. There are several examples of
benefits in taking energy-efficiency initiatives. First, it reduces direct costs: for
some industries, gas and electricity represent a large share of operating costs, reducing
energy consumption can therefore greatly diminish expenses. Even for companies that do
not consume much energy, any energy savings influence directly their bottom line. Second,
it improves utility rate negotiation: Indeed, electricity rates are often higher during
peak periods. Thus, if a company uses less electricity during peak periods, it obtains
more bargaining power to negotiate a lower unit price per kilowatt-hour. Third, it
improves worker productivity: Energy-efficient building design can often produce great
benefits in higher worker productivity, lower absenteeism and few errors. For instance,
it has been demonstrated that daylighting can have a significant impact on productivity,
increasing worker effectiveness.
Green power, such as wind or solar energy, which is emerging as a viable energy source
for businesses, provides also benefits that are complementary to energy efficiency.
First, it provides an incentive for saving energy: Even though green power might be still
more expensive, in some areas, than traditional power, if a company couples it with
energy efficiency measures, it can diminish its total energy consumption and therefore
drives the price of green power down by stimulating the green power market. Second, it
provides a competitive advantage: The companies that choose to buy green power
differentiate themselves in a competitive market, and thus set or raise the environmental
standard for other firms. Third, using green power enhances corporate reputation:
Purchasing green power is a way to retain customers concerned by environmental matters,
and it also enhances a company's reputation as an environmental leader. A good mean to
enhance reputation is also to install an on-site power generation system, as it is a
visible statement of the company's environmental commitment.
Gilette is one of these companies that have managed to reduce energy consumption without
affecting its economic performance. The Gillette Company today is the global market
leader in nearly a dozen major consumer products categories, principally in the grooming,
portable power and oral care businesses. During the period 1994-1997, the energy
consumption of Gilette increased by an average of 4% per year whereas the business had
grown by 10% per year. When Gilette built a new administrative building in Argentina,
they regarded energy efficiency as a major factor in its design. They put an automation
system in place that controls the air volume, conditioned air and lighting. They also
used advanced-design building materials, including sun visors that neutralise the solar
impact. Aware of the issue of Global Warming, Gilette has taken action through its
Worldwide Energy and Water Conservation Programs. Although the GHG emissions of the
company's manufacturing operations were 122,000 metric tons in 1997 and 7,000 tons higher
than the 1990 levels, it is estimated that it would have been 137,000 metric tons without
the conservation program. In 1997, Gilette wanted to go further and became a partner in
the Climate Wise Program. The purpose of this program is to help companies to identify
and implement cost-effective projects to reduce GHG emissions. Then, Gilette submitted a
Climate Wise Action Plan focusing on energy efficiency programs, supply chain
conservation initiatives, co-generation projects, fuel switching, and transportation. The
goal was a reduction of the company's GHG emissions by 23,000 metric tons by the year
2000. A good example of this is the actions taken by Gilette in Mexico. Indeed, Gilette
has important manufacturing and sales operations in Mexico City, where it recently
completed a multi-faceted program of warehouse consolidation, shipping route analysis and
redesign, truck fleet changes, and revamped operations procedures. The company analysed
the environmental impact of these changes and found a 20% average savings in fuel
consumption. The fuel savings translated into an estimated 2.5 million-pound reduction of
CO2 emissions from Gilette trucks.
As we saw, the industry is widely responsible for climate change. Some of them have
already taken action to reduce their direct or indirect GHG emissions and found
competitive advantages by doing so. Nonetheless, these companies are not numerous. Thus,
the solution to the problem is to give companies incentives to reduce their emission
level. These incentives can come from international regulations, but we saw that they
have not been very effective and rather slow so far. The problem is a political problem
about global governance. It is thought that the creation of a World Environmental
Organisation (WEO), as a par to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) might be beneficial to
the international regulation process. However, it is not done yet, and the Kyoto Protocol
is currently threatened. It has been even more endangered with the recent declaration of
George W. Bush, saying that the United States will not ratify the treaty. And we know
that the US plays an important role in global warming as they emit 25% of worldwide GHGs
whereas they only count for 4% of the population on Earth. The second way to give
incentives to companies to reduce their emission is through customer demand for 'green'
products. In fact, Bush was so odious that the international community condemned its
position and since, global concern about environmental issues has never been so strong.
Thus, the non-ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the US will perhaps have an opposite
effect of what Bush was expecting for the American economy, as consumers might demand
greener products in the near future. If Bush had taken basic marketing courses, he would
know that today, customers are kings and companies are very focused at providing them
exactly what they want. Companies are more concerned about customers than politics. By
the way, reducing GHG emission might not be as harmful for the economy as Bush thinks,
considering examples like Gilette. Thus the solution of the climate change issue might
come rather from consumers than politics. That is why NGOs have to play an important role
today by publicising the issue to the global community in accord with the famous slogan
'think globally act locally'.
2497 words
Bibliography
Bibliography
Web sites
? www.guardian.co.uk
? www.lemonde.fr
? www.sovereignty.net
? www.unfccc.org
? www.ipcc.ch
? www.bsr.org
? www.gilette.com (1998 Report on the Environment, Health and Safety)
Books
? French, Hillary, 2000. Coping with ecological globalization (State of the world 2000)
? White, Brian Richard Little, and Michael Smith, 1997. Issues in World Politics, Chap.
11: Vogler, John. Environment and Natural Resources.
London: MacMillan Press Ltd
Articles
? Elliot, Larry. 'After the failure of international nerve at The Hague, it is surely
time to set up new global institutions'. The Guardian, Nov. 29, 2000
? O'Neill Packard, K. and Reinhardt, F. 'What every executive needs to know about Global
Warming'. Harvard Business Review, July-August 2000. pp. 129-135
? 'On Thin Ice - Cold feet and hot air on Global Warming'. World Press Review, February
2001:
- Petitjean, Gerard. 'The 21st Century: Hot, Hot, Hot'. Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris,
France, Nov. 23, 2000.
- Radford, Tim. 'A Grim Picture'. The Guardian, London, England, Nov. 15, 2000.
- Joku, Harlyne. 'Sea Levels Rising'. Gemini News Service, London, England, Nov. 3,
2000.