By talking about climate change and global warming as the greatest risk facing humanity, politicians run a low risk. Who is not for polar bears, the ice caps, and preventing flooding and famine? Who is for the destruction of the planet? Climate change is the perfect amorphous issue and it presents no risk to the politician who advocates it. What better political position that to act responsibly on behalf of future generations. It is old political wine in new bottles.
Business is another matter. The zeal with which investment houses, pension funds, and insurance companies have adopted the climate change mantra is disturbing. Clearly they see huge business opportunities in carbon trading, re-insurance, and clean technology. While I am all for private markets addressing pressing problems,and all for private money chasing whatever it wishes, one needs to question the basis on which pension funds and investors make decisions, not to say corporations who spend shareholder funds to spin their version of the threat. Once they have adopted a particular approach, they will bring to bear their lobbying resources to the public debate with attempts to shape the business landscape in order to profit, while positioning themselves as the good guys riding to the rescue of planetary peril.
The Investor Network on Climate Risk, for example, represents a thoughtful group of people who now stand ready to invest other people's money on the basis of a political position. One wonders how many members of this network are attending the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change this week, where they will hear actual policy options as well as the science debated. Updates are here
http://www.reason.com/news/show/125281.html
where Ronald Bailey is reporting from the conference.
The low risk political statements from politicians coupled with the trillions of dollars that investors can bring to bear on the debate should inspire dread in anyone hoping for sound public policy in the interests of consumers. One notes little consistency among investment houses and corporations when it comes to environment.
The same investment firm willing to discourse on climate change risk is quite willing to hold stock in Shell, one of the largest developers of the Alberta Tar Sands, a filthy, but perhaps necessary, project if ever there was one. The same corporations promoting corporate responsibilty are usually those whose operations vitally disrupt communities and environments where they operate. In busines as in politics, it seems, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment