Top businesses demand action on global warming.
By on Nov 30th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Top businesses demand action on global warming.
“Officials from more than 150 global companies – worth nearly $4 trillion in market capitalization – have signed a petition urging ’strong, early action on climate change’ when political leaders” meet in Bali, Indonesia for talks under the auspices of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change.
UPDATE: AFP reports, “Bush clings to anti-Kyoto stance ahead of climate talks.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Good thing global warming doesn’t exist, otherwise all this concern might make Bush want to take action….
November 30th, 2007 at 5:12 pmAsk yourself this question: If global warming isn’t about money, why are 150 global companies lobbying for global warming initiatives?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — November 30, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
So that everyone on the Earth doesn’t die?
November 30th, 2007 at 5:17 pmwhy are 150 global companies lobbying for global warming initiatives?
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Because of the new industries that could be created.
What’s wrong? You hate capitalism when combined with a good deed?
November 30th, 2007 at 5:18 pm#2 Could it be that the heads and many top execs of all 150 companies have seaside resort property? Or they have ski chalets in Gstaad or Aspen. Or both!
November 30th, 2007 at 5:19 pmYou hate capitalism when combined with a good deed?
Comment by DieNowForPeace — November 30, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
That’s a little too subtle for for Masturbastic to grasp.
He’s busy grasping something else right now. Saaayyy… anybody seen Ex-lax or Hendler in the last few minutes?
November 30th, 2007 at 5:27 pmCustomers who are under water don’t buy much toilet paper.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:29 pmEven top businesses are admonishing Bush for his ignorant stance on global warming! Now that’s really saying something!
November 30th, 2007 at 5:34 pmGOP global warming mantras ~
It may be happening, but man isn’t causing it, so we can’t do anything that might hurt the economy.
I don’t give a rats ass about the future generations, I’m in the process of screwing over everybody else so I can get mine.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:34 pmNow that corporations care about global warming, something might actually get done! We know people don’t count until the corporations get involved, and then they can put together their little self-cogratulatory ad compaigns telling us how much they’re doing for the environment. All I care about is that something gets done, and if this is what it takes, then it’s good news.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:43 pmI don’t give a rats ass about the future generations, I’m in the process of screwing over everybody else so I can get mine.
Comment by RUCerious — November 30, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
They care about children, if you can call the twinkle in your father’s eye a child. It’s after they’re born when their interest in saving them drops. After all, the world can always use more bullet fodder.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:46 pmIf a company plans on being in business for the indefinite future, it is in their best interests to have live, healthy customers and a planet to live on. The actions of the businesses are not that altruistic, they simply need to stay in business – meaning they need to earn a profit.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:47 pmAsk yourself this question: If global warming isn’t about money, why are 150 global companies lobbying for global warming initiatives?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — November 30, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
As for you, CaptainFOOLtastic, when it comes to corporations, EVERYTHING in this world is about money. So why don’t you ask yourself this question: Isn’t it better to have money spent to benefit our planet, rather than what we have now, money spent to harm our planet? I really don’t understand what your problem is with spending money and creating initiatives that benefit this planet. Maybe you can explain yourself, because I’d really like to know how you people think.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:47 pm…because I’d really like to know how you people think.
Comment by Tender Chicken — November 30, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
You’re asking a lot here.
November 30th, 2007 at 5:50 pmWe have made great strides in the ability to ascertain with almost compete certainty the levels of melting ice due to Penguin flatulence.
Comment by Billy Hill
I don’t even care if this is correct or not, it is funny as hell. Good one Billy!
November 30th, 2007 at 5:51 pmYou’re asking a lot here.
Comment by Namtillaku — November 30, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
I know, but I’m so tired of these fools and their dumba$$ blanket statments that never make any sense. I thought I’d challenge this one to explain itself. I won’t hold my breath. The thought of actually having to explain their beliefs usually makes them apoplectic. Pity.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:05 pmIf anyone so chooses to join the fight, Bartlebee is still on yesterday’s Huckabee post talking his nonsense.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:08 pmBush clings to anti-Kyoto stance
Anybody know how wide this stance is?
November 30th, 2007 at 6:10 pmNice to see the concerned political leaders of the world decided to meet in a place that isn’t capable of holding them all, much less being in a region that is regularly accessed by airlines.
How big is their ‘carbon footprint’ for just happening to decide that a vacation resort is the best place to hold their meeting? I would have more respect for their efforts if they instead chose a place like Detroit or Mexico City.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:15 pm#24 Care to support your theory that the carbon footprint of a resort is any different than the carbon footprint of a large city with outdated accommodations in a city with a pollution factor off the charts? Or is it your practice to make statements that are senseless and inane? Back up your assertion with some factual data please.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:33 pmMinny: Or perhaps that’s simply too much to ask of you?
November 30th, 2007 at 6:35 pmNice to see the concerned political leaders of the world decided to meet in a place that isn’t capable of holding them all, much less being in a region that is regularly accessed by airlines.
Comment by Minotaur — November 30, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
Isn’t capable of holding them all?
Isn’t regularly accessed by airlines? BALI???
WTF??? Are you still living in the ’40’s?
OH wait… I just remembered who I’m trying to reason w/… never mind. Prattle on…
November 30th, 2007 at 6:39 pmIt’s a great day to be……………………….ME!
Comment by Billy Hill — November 30, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
Back under the double wide (aka “Mom’s Basement”), HillyBilly.
Your 4:00 pm bottle of T-bird is chilled and waiting.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:41 pmTruthfully?
If these guys control $4 TRILLION in market capitalization, they could undertake their own initiatives and have quite an impact. They really don’t need to wait for governments to do something first.
Tap… tap… **waiiiiting** Tap… tap…
November 30th, 2007 at 6:44 pmIf anyone so chooses to join the fight, Bartlebee is still on yesterday’s Huckabee post talking his nonsense.
Comment by dim wit — November 30, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
I just poked my head in there and it sounds like Bart’s gone even further off the deep end. I just caught a couple of exchanges between him and Pete and also with dim wit, and both of you were measured, reasoned and well-argued, and Bart came back with personally-directed troll blather.
Man, that dude has some staying power.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:45 pm#24 Care to support your theory that the carbon footprint of a resort is any different than the carbon footprint of a large city with outdated accommodations in a city with a pollution factor off the charts? Or is it your practice to make statements that are senseless and inane? Back up your assertion with some factual data please.
How far out of the ordinary airline corridors is Bali? The place itself can’t even hold all the airplanes that will arrive, instead those airplanes will have to be kept on a different island.
So the planners had a choice: either have the planes drop off their passengers on Bali and then deadhead (fly empty) to the other island or else land on the other island and ferry the passengers over to Bali. Why not fly into a city which can hold all the planes and isn’t off the beaten path?
What exactly are “outdated” accomodations? Detroit, Mexico City, Madrid, London etc. probably have enough standard hotel rooms to accommodate the attendees, though they wouldn’t of course have the spectacular views and gorgeous beaches that Bali can boast of.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:53 pmthat would be 2 liters of Almaden Blush Chablis or Sutter Home White Zinfandel
Comment by Billy Hill — November 30, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
I’m not surprised.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:57 pmPut aside the global warming debate for a minute. Is there at least one progressive here that is willing to recognize the hypocriscy of the idea that progressives spend most of their time criticizing corporations as greedy or self interested and working against the common good in favor of corporate profits; until they champion global warming initiatives, then they are altruistic and champions for the common good.
Have we done a 180 on the evils of capitalism or is this just a short sighted opportunism?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — November 30, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
So your point is… if we’re going to criticize corporations for doing something wrong, we should… continue to criticize them when they do something right?
Am I missing something?
November 30th, 2007 at 7:02 pmCaptainFOOLtastic, you have yet to explain your reasoning for disbelief in global warming. Instead, you continue to make meaningless blanket statments. Either explain yourself so we may better understand your position, or go away because you are not furthering the discussion in a possitive fashion (or is that your goal?).
November 30th, 2007 at 7:08 pmSorry to break it to you, but we’re not really interested in your personal habits, Hillbilly.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:13 pmHalf-man-half-bull: “How big is their ‘carbon footprint’ for just happening to decide that a vacation resort is the best place to hold their meeting? I would have more respect for their efforts if they instead chose a place like Detroit or Mexico City.”
This is a derivation of the standard right-wing phony argument which usually is about Al Gore’s big house – how can you be concerned about global warming when you’re contributing to global warming? If they’re so concerned, why don’t they clean up their own house first – you know how it goes.
But, oh oh, the same guys will support the War in Iraq, but think it’s simply unfair when someone says, “if you support it, why don’t you go join up?”
November 30th, 2007 at 7:18 pmCaptain Mantastic: “Have we done a 180 on the evils of capitalism or is this just a short sighted opportunism?”
No, dummy, liberals can be capitalists. Ask Warren Buffet or Bill Gates.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:21 pmCaptain, the motivation could be LOSS of profit. Isn’t it possible that many industries see warming as a threat to their profits? For example, all industry related to farming sees a possible displacement of their optimum crops. I would guess that this group includes both industries which stand to make a profit on new technologies and industries worried about their long term health in the face of climate change.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:25 pmIt’s time for all of us to stop falling on our swords for the oil industry. In 30 years, it will be gone, anyway. We should prepare for that.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:26 pmCap’n, here’s the point you were making, in your own words. You were talking about:
the hypocriscy of the idea that progressives spend most of their time criticizing corporations as greedy or self interested and working against the common good in favor of corporate profits; until they champion global warming initiatives, then they are altruistic and champions for the common good.
That doesn’t sound anything like the point you said I was missing (in post 44). It sounds an awful lot more like you think it’s hypocrisy to criticize bad behavior but then champion good behavior from the same source.
No one said corporations were altruistic. That’s your spin, which coincidentally, enhances your charge of “hypocrisy”. No one said corporations were acting out of a sense of altruism. The suggestions were that corporations saw that curbing global climate change might be in their best interests.
Anyone who thinks corporations SHOULD act altruistically doesn’t understand the nature of the marketplace. But anyone who thinks corporations should ignore the good of the communities in which they operate to concentrate on profits alone is guilty of a sadly narrow vision of the world. It’s a vision that I believe has played a big part in the state we find ourselves in today.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:28 pmRalph: “But anyone who thinks corporations should ignore the good of the communities in which they operate to concentrate on profits alone is guilty of a sadly narrow vision of the world.”
When given the choice between doing what’s good for society and what’s good for profits, corporations will almost always choose the profits at the expense of society. Adam Smith warned us about this in “Wealth of Nations.” This is why he argued that corporations must be regulated for society to operate properly – and he’s known as the “Father of Capitalism.”
November 30th, 2007 at 7:32 pmRHF:
Your purported synopsis of Bartlebee’s arguments is fabricated and a gross distortion. You only make yourself look stupid.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:36 pmWhen given the choice between doing what’s good for society and what’s good for profits, corporations will almost always choose the profits at the expense of society. Adam Smith warned us about this in “Wealth of Nations.†This is why he argued that corporations must be regulated for society to operate properly – and he’s known as the “Father of Capitalism.â€
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — November 30, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
No argument, Colonel.
What i was driving at (and admittedly hadn’t really arrived) was that the common good plays a greater role in the success of a company than many corporatists seem to recognize.
A classic example was Henry Ford paying his assembly line workers enough of a wage that they could afford to buy one of the cars they helped assemble.
Conservatives, oddly, recognize the benefit to the economy that more money in the pockets of the wealthy can bring, but they ignore the wider benefit that higher wages for workers produce.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:41 pmRalph, I totally agree with the point you were making – and Henry Ford is a great example of a capitalist who understood how a mass economy works. He’s was the opposite of a supply-sider. He understood that capital follows labor, not the other way around.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:46 pmHave we done a 180 on the evils of capitalism or is this just a short sighted opportunism?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — November 30, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
always the black or white.
More straw!
November 30th, 2007 at 7:48 pmCaptain: “I oppose a redistribution of the world’s wealth…”
Then what would you call the process of taking hundreds of billions of dollars from working class people contributing to the Social Security fund and turning it over to the nation’s wealthiest families?
November 30th, 2007 at 7:49 pmFolks, remember that the Minotaur had the upper part of a bull so you can imagine the state of his brains.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:52 pmThe debate on man’s role in climate change should continue, only because many ignore the real costs associated with addressing something that may (or may not) be significant.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
I hate when these idiots talk about costs and stuff. I wanna see them watching their kids dying of hunger saying: Well, you see, son, we are not going that good financially…so…take care.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:54 pmThe Colonel makes an excellent point about the current redistribution of wealth we’re seeing in this country.
Cap’n, just as the planet has been heating and cooling for millenia, so is wealth being constantly redistributed. Our current economic model is set up beautifully for a redistribution upwards. That doesn’t seem to bother most conservatives.
November 30th, 2007 at 7:59 pm“I hate when these idiots talk about costs and stuff.”
Right. And they couldn’t care less about spending 40 billion a month in Iraq. And when the redistribution of wealth is moving from the working classes to the most wealthy, they just stare off into space like nothing’s happening.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:00 pmI think the inability of modern conservatives to recognize UPWARD redistribution of wealth is the same as royalists and torries believing that the aristocracy has a god-given right to their wealth by birth-right. For centuries, we lived in monarchal systems and some people, mainly self-loathing sociopths, just can’t let it go. It’s like it’s in their blood.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:06 pmCaptain, you posted that you don’t believe in redistribution of wealth. I’ll ask you again: do you see taking hundreds of billions in social security funds – all of which was contributed by working class people, and giving most of it to the most wealthy as a redistribution of wealth? If not, why not?
November 30th, 2007 at 8:16 pmcrickets
November 30th, 2007 at 8:19 pmI think the inability of modern conservatives to recognize UPWARD redistribution of wealth is the same as royalists and torries believing that the aristocracy has a god-given right to their wealth by birth-right. For centuries, we lived in monarchal systems and some people, mainly self-loathing sociopths, just can’t let it go. It’s like it’s in their blood.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — November 30, 2007 @ 8:06 pm
Would that be Blue blood…?
November 30th, 2007 at 8:22 pmI’ll ask you again: do you see taking hundreds of billions in social security funds – all of which was contributed by working class people, and giving most of it to the most wealthy as a redistribution of wealth? If not, why not?
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — November 30, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
Are you referring to the Bush tax cuts here? The national debt? The war? I can’t find your original reference point for this question.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:27 pmOn the topic of this thread, this is fantastic news. If the Invisible Hand of the market place determines that Green technology is a winner and consumers agree, there is no downside that I can see.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:31 pmIf Green technology is a winner and consumers agree, why do companies need governmental action? Is that the new definition of ‘invisible hand’?
BTW, GE international signed the petition; guess who makes the new ‘green’ light bulbs?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — November 30, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
There is always a push and pull between regulation and unfettered capitalism. Either taken to an extreme is not good. Green technology and the politics that drive it is inexorable, whether you believe humans are causing global warming or not. I like seeing American corporations getting on board this train. I see no downside from a practical standpoint; the ideology is a secondary concern.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:07 pmCarbon emissions do not cause global warming.
On to the next “crisis.”
November 30th, 2007 at 10:33 pmIt’s the Sun, stupid.
At least Ol’ Al Gore doesn’t have to feel so bad about heatin’ his pool this winter, eh? If you can afford the bill, Al, dive right in!
November 30th, 2007 at 10:35 pmAt least Ol’ Al Gore doesn’t have to feel so bad about heatin’ his pool this winter, eh? If you can afford the bill, Al, dive right in!
Comment by muckdog — November 30, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
You folks really need to stop masturbating every time a US soldier dies in Iraq.
Comment by muckdog — August 8, 2007 @ 2:23 am
Li’l Muckie! Yer a true class act.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:14 pmou folks really need to stop masturbating every time a US soldier dies in Iraq.
Comment by muckdog — August 8, 2007 @ 2:23 am
Li’l Muckie! Yer a true class act.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — November 30, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
suckdog projects like a Kodak. if he weren’t so busy cheering the deaths of the troops, he might get behind properly arming and training them. but he won’t, it would embarrass his masters.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:24 pmOn to the next “crisis.â€
Comment by muckdog — November 30, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
yes, let’s all believe the oil industry lobbyist’s patently obvious lies. not for me, suckdog, he’s taking directly to the stupid and gullible, which is why you were so easily hooked.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:26 pmThere is potential for new business and new sources of profits for companies who actually work toward improvements in the environment.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:02 amTrolls can’t see past their hatred for Al Gore.
Trolls can’t see past their hatred for Al Gore.
Comment by Marie — December 1, 2007 @ 12:02 am
Trolls have a natural aversion to their superiors.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:31 am“On the topic of this thread, this is fantastic news. If the Invisible Hand of the market place determines that Green technology is a winner and consumers agree, there is no downside that I can see.”
Oh, yeah, the old invisible hand. Considering corporations play a large part in releasing those pollutants and helping cause this situation I don’t think old Adam Smith really applies.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:49 am‘Carbon emissions do not cause global warming.
On to the next “crisis.‒
Yes, I am going to believe a broken link from a website called globalwarmingskeptics.com. Great credibility.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:54 amBut, the main reason modern life is immensely better than in the past, is due to liberty and free markets.
this is a very hard statement to prove. most of our technological advances are government-produced and funded, many in the name of war. so the rest of your statement is on very shaky ground. and the US has advanced, as have many nations in Europe, with a healthy mix of socialism and capitalism. Your use of socialism as a negative is fearmongering in the GOP tradition. Socialism doesn’t jeopardize liberty, in fact, in enriches and strengthens it, distributing it to all, not just the few that can afford it.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:06 pmSo why call for the US to join Kyoto, rather than for more countries to leave it ?
Comment by Kilo — December 2, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Brilliant. Let’s kill off the grandchildren even faster, because kilo says so.
Looks the the home-schooling in Australia is just as good as that in the Homeland.
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:10 pm