While we wait to see the specifics of Obama’s plans for fighting global warming and the response from Congress, a group of five major corporations are requesting legislation to set serious new standards and enforce them.
Coordinated by CERES, a coalition of environmental, nonprofit and corporate organizations, BICEP (Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy) is made up of Nike, Starbucks, Levi Strauss, Sun Microsystems and Timberland.
Recognizing the risks to their companies from climate change, these corporations want Congress to pass new legislation. The goals they want Congress to enforce are pretty impressive and include:
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 - The United States must achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and at least 25 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2020.
Promote Energy Efficiency – Establish aggressive energy efficiency policies … to promote at least a doubling of our historic rate of energy efficiency improvement and utilize standards, incentives, and other policies to promote efficient vehicles, plug-in electric hybrids, low-carbon fuels, reduction in vehicle miles traveled and transit-oriented development.
Invest in a Clean Energy Economy – Increase investment in technology while eliminating subsidies for fossil fuel industries and support "green collar" jobs "in low-income communities and communities vulnerable to economic impact from climate change." Finally, they demand that Congress "require that nationally 20 percent of electricity be generated from renewable energy sources by 2020, and 30 percent by 2030" and serious limitations on coal fired plants.
As Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres said,
"These companies have a clear message for next year’s Congress: move quickly on climate change and create a prosperous green economy and green jobs at the same time."
This week Ceres had the sad news of announcing the death of one of its founders, Joan Bavaria, who was a true Hero of the Planet. This good news would have made Joan very proud indeed.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
some sort of paraphrase:
The peasant gave the gift of warmth from the sunlight, to the emperor, from a pleasant winter day.
Please forgive the OT:
On NPR right now (David Brooks & E.J. Dionne) about Obama nominations for cabinet: They all seem to be “evidence-based” — as well as Ivy-league, and change-oriented.
I like the “evidence-based”. It sounds a whole lot better than poll-based, or ideologically driven, and it suits my scientific background.
However, evidence is nothing unless you have a set of organizing principles to understand what you’re seeing.
So what kind of “evidence” do we have that will help guide Congress in designing appropriate regulations?
These talking heads also said: The Republican Party is not coming back any time soon.
Bob in HI
Bob, I think that hiring back all the scientists and researchers purged by Bush from the Federal regulatory agencies would help revive the institutional memory of these agencies.
um… could i please have some evidence of these folks being “evidence-based” other than david brooks say-so?
or maybe evidence-based doesn’t mean what i think it means?
lol, think you just found some ‘evidense’
also another question – this seems grossly insufficient. what are the targets for temp change and atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases that these numbers are based on.
It will be interesting to see how many other corporations jump on this bandwagon!
From what I’ve heard, those goals are insufficient to the problem and will be too late to do any good.
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi…..nemissions
“The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere today, the most prevalent greenhouse gas, is the highest it has been for the past 650,000 years. In the space of just 250 years, as a result of the coal-fired Industrial Revolution, and changes to land use such as the growth of cities and the felling of forests, we have released, cumulatively, more than 1,800bn tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.”
Nice thought, tho
NPR reported this morning. I was agog. As Dubya said, We’ll all be dead.
One encouraging prediction: The intelligence analysts who prepared the global trends report suggest that a “worldwide shift” to a new energy technology that can replace oil “will be under way or accomplished by 2025.” The problem: Energy supply won’t match demand, meaning the potential for geopolitical conflict over energy resources could be severe.
Here’s the link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..038;f=1003
There is some good news — we are cutting back on our energy use. And this isn’t just due to the economic slowdown, either:
Eli’s up
Center-Right Nation
Selise – this is the goal that most experts set as reachable with very agressive action. If we can go further, great but I’m mighty pleased to see large corporates ask for regulation – and start to meet those goals themselves.
can you give me a link? because from everything i’ve seen this is a recipe for runaway global warming. :(
are you very sure it’s not a greenwashing attempt?
This IS good news, and you won’t find it in the MSM, I guess . . . Thanks Siun, once again . . . and yes, sad news to have lost Mz. Bavaria . . . as I read thru the CERES document, it was apparent what she had brought to the planet.
Is it just me or does there seem to be a welling tide of hope and optimism springing forth everywhere despite our predicaments and conditions across all issues?
BobS, it’s that LAST line I find myself grinning devilishly to . . . *G*
How about (I’m guesstimating here as Devil’s Advocate) maybe they were all booted and rooted from BushCo for doing their jobs competently and because they might have a conscience and didn’t follow the party line?
As someone after your comment suggest, hiring all those who WERE dumped and purged by BushCo can’t be a BAD thing . . . . ;-)
So, we’re already dead? And we do, what, nothing?
Change is slow, some change is better than none.
And once change is in motion, it picks up support and speed in times of peril.
Hey, if we don’t make it as species in the next couple of generations, so be it.
But I got about 20-30 years left on the rock, and I’ll take any change and small steps to the good . . . I’ll applaud what I can. And I’ll smile and grin at the changes all around us till the new boss is just like the old boss. Which I don’t think either Obama, or other emerging leaders, are. *G*
We give it a good shot, and the cards will fall as they may.
As Sgt. Oddball would say (paraphrase), No Negative Vibes, Man.
“. . . . the potential for geopolitical conflict over energy resources could be severe.”
Hmm, 17 years? My guess, it’s coming inside ten years . . . and, so is my guess that science will FIND alt energy source(s) within 10, as the barriers to RESEARCHING FOR IT and killing bought out patents past and present are broken down.
Between bought out technology that was suppressed to further the needle plunge of a fossil fuel lifestyle into our arms and R&D, I’d bet in 10 years we won’t recognize the planet.
But hey, I wasn’t ALWAYS this optimistic in my life . . . ;-) Not since the 60’s . . . LOL
Selise – go to the Bicep link and read what these companies are asking for and what they plan to do. They are requesting regulation that will enforce stricter standards than the Dems are talking about. I don’t see how you can call this greenwashing when they are *asking* for regulation to the standards of most environmental activists.
Consider this:
“People aren’t reducing emissions at all, let alone debating whether 88 percent or 99 percent is sufficient,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. “It’s like you’re starting off on a road trip from New York to California, and before you even start, you’re arguing about where you’re going to park at the end.”
Now we can fuss that they are not going far enough or we can celebrate the idea that some big corporations are pushing for a serious goal and get to work. I prefer the second option and I’m glad some players with heft are taking away Congress’s excuses for regulation.
Larue … I certainly see things happening that suggest people and powers are starting to move. Change does not happen in an instant, it needs to begin and gather momentum and it needs our help and support.
I often wonder what would have happened if MLK had given up and said well, gosh, we haven’t elected a black president so let’s not push for voting rights …
Selise, check this out:
Got that? They’re going to meet Rudd’s target a full decade ahead of schedule.
Oh, and as I mentioned, the US has already started cutting back on energy usage (and not because of the economic downturn, either).
i’m happy to celebrate small progress so long as we don’t confuse it with what is actually needed and so let it distract us from the real work at hand. i’m not objecting to baby steps, i’m questioning your claim that the goals you posts are “the standards of most environmental activists.” i just don’t think that’s so.
ipcc pfd
stern
hanson (via hugh)
Reframing the climate change challenge in light of post-2000 emission trends (pdf) (via kirk)
this isn’t fussing, this is trying to understand and get it right – according to the best science that’s available. and if the dems aren’t talking about doing enough that’s a problem
Perfect material for my lecture on regulation in the CSR class I teach. Thanks, Siun!
i checked your link and did not see any greenhouse gas targets. did i miss them?
i’ve got to go, will check back here later if anyone leaves me any links to the science behind the goals. if the rate of change is front loaded, it may be great – but if it’s 20 years out that’s a problem. i think it’s worth knowing which it is.
Handy shopping guide
http://tinyurl.com/NoGmo