harvardbusiness.org
What do Exelon, Pacific Gas & Electric, PNM Resources, and Nike all have in common? In the last week they all dropped out of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over the group's stance on climate-change legislation.
Sadly, the Chamber's COO told the Wall Street Journal that these defections will not change the Chamber's misguided positions, including constant carping about the potential costs (almost always overstated) of climate change and calling for a mock "trial" on the science of climate change.
Here's why the Chamber is out to lunch. First, tackling climate change is good for business and improves the competitiveness of our industries and the country as a whole. And, oh, on a related note, the Chamber is increasingly out of step with its own members — because they do see how going green will help their businesses.
As so many companies already know, climate legislation will help our nation's businesses stay competitive on the global stage. But don't listen to me, listen to mega-venture capitalist John Doerr and GE's Jeff Immelt. The two staunch capitalists wrote a powerful op-ed in the Washington Post that laid out the series of crises we face: economic, climate, energy security, and now a "competitiveness crisis." As they put it, "this crisis is particularly evident in America's worldwide standing in the next great global industry, green technology."
Their evidence: One in ten of the world's biggest solar and wind companies are based in the U.S. We're falling behind China, Germany, and others fast. Their solution, in part: "Send a long-term signal that low-carbon energy is valuable. We must put a price on carbon and a cap on carbon emissions." With the right price signals, we invest, innovate, and move off of fossil fuels (and stop sending $700 billion every year in oil payments to countries that don't like us — but that's a separate story).
And with the right policy in place around the world, according to HSBC, climate change-related products and services will be a $2 trillion market by 2020. That's a big pie to compete for. But without the right price signals here in the U.S., we can't compete. It's as simple as that.
But instead of listening to the companies making these arguments, the Chamber is waging a campaign to make it seem like the entire business community is against climate policy. That's absurd. A growing number of large companies have actually joined groups — such as the U.S. Climate Action Partnership and the Pew Center for Climate Change — to lobby specifically for more environmental legislation.
The ranks of the signatories include five of the Fortune 15: GE, HP, Bank of America, Citigroup, and IBM. The reasons for their support are varied, from seeing the writing on the wall and wanting a seat at the table to seeking direct business benefits from higher carbon prices (as in selling more wind turbines). The total revenues of the companies that have joined these groups is now over $2.5 trillion.
It would be easy to write off the companies that will benefit from carbon pricing and cap-and-trade, such as Exelon, the nation's leading nuclear provider. It's just in their business interest, critics might say. But isn't a Chamber of Commerce supposed to promote what's in business's best interest? There are forces aligning to make this larger case to Congress and other leaders — for example, check out an important new group that I support, the Clean Economy Network.)
Last week I wrote about military leaders who are making the case that climate change is a national security issue. Now we have power companies and business leaders talking about climate change as an issue of national competitiveness.
I chalk up the Chamber's problems to an issue with how they define their role in promoting "commerce." Not all governmental organizations think of their mission so narrowly; for example, I've been invited to keynote a summit on "Sustainability and National Competitiveness" by another organization that plays a role in the issue — the U.S. Department of Commerce.
No comments:
Post a Comment