2. 外语
  3. Can Business Be Cool? Why a growing number of firms are taking global warming seriously. Companies supporting environmen

Can Business Be Cool? Why a growing number of firms are taking global warming seriously. Companies supporting environmen

admin2010-01-10  39
问题                              Can Business Be Cool?
    Why a growing number of firms are taking global warming seriously.
    Companies supporting environment protection
    Rupert Murdoch is no green activist. But in Pebble Beach later this summer, the annual gathering of executives of Mr Murdoch’s News Corporation--which last year led to a dramatic shift in the media conglomerate’s attitude to the Internet--will be addressed by several leading environmentalists, including a vice-president turned climate-change movie star. Last month BSkyB, a British satellitetelevision company chaired by Mr. Murdoch and run by his son, James, declared itself "carbon-neutral", having taken various steps to cut or offset its discharges of carbon into the atmosphere.
    The army of corporate greens is growing fast. Late last year HSBC became the first big bank to announce that it was carbon-neutral, joining other financial institutions, including Swiss Re, a reinsurer, and Goldman Sachs, an investment bank, in waging war on climate-warming gases (of which carbon dioxide is the main culprit). Last year General Electric (GE), an industrial powerhouse, launched its "Ecomagination" strategy, aiming to cut its output of greenhouse gases and to invest heavily in clean (i.e., carbon-free) technologies. In October Wal-Mart announced a series of environmental schemes, including doubling the fuel-efficiency of its fleet of vehicles within a decade. Tesco and Sainsbury, two Of Britain’s biggest retailers, are competing fiercely to be the greenest. And on June 7th some leading British bosses lobbied Tony Blair for a more ambitious policy on climate change, even if that involves harsher regulation.
The other side
    The greening of business is by no means universal, however. Money from Exxon Mobil, Ford and General Motors helped pay for television advertisements aired recently in America by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, with the daft slogan "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life". Besides, environmentalist critics say, some firms are engaged in superficial "greenwash to boost the image of essentially climate-hurting businesses. Take BP, the most prominent corporate advocate of action on climate change, with its "Beyond Petroleum" ad campaign, high-profile investments in green energy, and even a "carbon calculator" on its websites helps consumers measure their personal "carbon footprint", or overall emissions of carbon. Yet, critics complain, BP’s recent record profits are largely thanks to sales of huge amounts of carbon-packed oil and gas.
    On the other hand, some free-market thinkers see the support of firms for regulation of carbon as the latest attempt at "regulatory capture", by those who stand to profit from new rules. Max Schulz of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, notes darkly that "Enron was into pushing the idea of climate change, because it was good for its business".
    Others argue that climate change has no more place in corporate boardrooms than do discussions of other partisan political issues, such as Darfur or gay marriage. That criticism, at least, is surely wrong. Most of the corporate converts say they are acting not out of some vague sense of social responsibility, or even personal angst, but because climate change creates real business risks and opportunities—from regulatory compliance to insuring clients on flood plains. And although these concerns vary hugely from one company to the next, few firms can be sure of remaining unaffected.
The climate of opinion
    The most obvious risk is of rising energy costs. Indeed, the recent high price of oil and natural gas, allied to fears over the security of energy supplies from the Middle East and Russia—neither of which have anything to de with climate change—may be the main reason why many firms have recently become interested in alternative energy sources. But at the same time, a growing number of bosses—whatever their personal views about the scientific evidence of climate change—now think that the public has become convinced that global warming is for real. Hurricane Katrina was particularly important in changing opinion in America. Many businessmen have concluded that this new public mood will result, sooner or later, in government action to control carbon emissions—most likely, using some sort of carbon tax or Kyoto-like system of tradable caps on firms’ carbon emissions.
    A carbon-trading system is already in place in the European Union. But even in America, some influential businesses are exerting pressure on the government to control carbon emissions. One motive is to help firms facing decisions that will depend for their long-term profitability on what carbon regime, if any, is in place. "Some asset-intensive industries are making investments now that have a 30-to-50-year horizon," says Travis Engen, who recently stepped down as boss of Alcan, a big aluminium firm. "As CEO, I wanted to make damn sure my investments were good for the future, not just today"—which, for him, meant evaluating investments assuming that his firm would soon have to pay to emit carbon.
    Indeed, some expect President Bush to start thinking more about climate change after November’s mid-term elections, especially now that he has appointed a keen environmentalist as treasury secretary— Hank Paulson, who as boss of Goldman Sachs was the force behind the investment bank’s greener stance. "American businesses are starting to realise that something is going to happen on carbon," says Jim Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy, one of the country’s biggest power producers, who reckons legislation is quite likely to pass in Congress by 2009.
Companies’ move
    As firms try to do something about climate change, the typical first step is to improve their energy efficiency, by both reducing consumption and also shifting the mix of sources from hydrocarbons towards cleaner alternatives. Given high oil prices, those that have already done so have found energy efficiency to be surprisingly good for profits.
    "Carbon Down, Profits Up", a report by the Climate Group, an organisation founded in 2004 by various firms and governments, listed 74 companies from 18 industries in 11 countries that are committed to cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. So far, this has brought them combined savings of $11.6 billion, claims the report. Four firms- Bayer, British Telecom, DuPont and Norske Canada—account for $4 billion of this between them.
    Many companies, including BP, also see the chance to make money from providing things that help reduce global warming—from clean coal-fired power-stations, to wind farms, to mortgages with better rates for homes that are carbon-neutral. GE plans to double its revenues from 17 clean-technology businesses to $20 billion by 2010. HSBC’s decision to become carbon-neutral is part of a plan to develop a carbon-finance business, both for retail consumers and corporate clients. "We believe it is a major business opportunity for us, not a hobby or corporate social responsibility," says Francis Sullivan of HSBC. And even as car firms lobby against regulating carbon, they are investing heavily in cleaner hybrid cars.
    Going carbon-neutral—in which a firm cuts its carbon output as much as possible and then offsets any left over by paying to reduce emissions elsewhere—is particularly attractive to firms that sell directly to the public and reckon that their customers want them to take climate change seriously. Since these sorts of firms are often not great carbon-emitters in the first place, "carbon neutrality" can be fairly painless.
    A recent study by the Carbon Trust, a British quango, reckoned that, for industries such as airlines, up to 50% of brand value may be at risk if firms fail to take action on climate change.
The author mentioned the disaster of Hurricane Katrina because he wanted to demonstrate the harmful effects of unlimited emission of carbon dioxide.
选项 A、Y
B、N
C、NG
答案B
解析 根据飓风的名字定位在第三部分第一段，作者提到这个灾难，目的并不是要说明二氧化碳排放所带来的危害，而是想要说明在此之后，人们更加相信气候变化的事实了
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/wSzFFFFM
0

大学英语四级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)