With the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report in 2007 (1), a worldwide consensus was reached on the importance of controlling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to mitigate climate change. It is now clear that mankind as a whole and any industry in particular must increase its sustainability to resolve this crucial problem. Sustainability or sustainable development was defined in the Bruntland Commission report (2) as one that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”, but also in more practical terms as “a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development; and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations.” In other words, sustainability is the balance and integration of social well-being, economic prosperity and environmental protection. No particular goal can be sustained without the other two. This becomes even more important as we consider sustainability at an industry or company level, since the existence of a business is based on making a profit. The European approach to increase sustainability and reduce GHG emissions appears to be based on policies and regulations (e.g. 3,4) that can result in market distortions and unproductive costs (5). In contrast, the United States approach is to let the market forces reach a solution, with or without some legislation. Typically market forces take a long time to reach a solution to a given problem, but it can be argued that the U.S. changes toward a more sustainable future and reduced GHG emissions will be accelerated due to three major stimuli:
• The high cost of commodities, particularly energy, due to increasing demand (population and economic growth) and insufficient supply. For example we are quickly approaching “peak oil” (6), the point of maximum worldwide production, and therefore a continual price escalation of oil seems inevitable.
• Business opportunities to mitigate climate change (7,8). Reducing annual GHG emissions by say 20 GtCO2 will cost anywhere from 20 to 100 €/tCO2 which means expenditures would range between 400- and 2000-billion €. A business capturing 0.1% of that market will increase its revenue by 400- to 2000-million €. This is not including investments for further sustainable development worldwide.
• A major increase in N.A. consumers’ awareness of climate change. After many years of receiving conflicting information through the N.A. media, it appears that the combined effect of the movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” starring Al Gore, and the release of the IPCC report (1) tipped the awareness balance during 2007. By September of that year, 71% of U.S. voters thought global warming was a serious problem (9). This was a complete reversal from 2006 (10).

It is symptomatic that many large N.A. corporations, including Caterpillar, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Ford, General Electric, General Motors and PepsiCo, have joined non-governmental organizations including Environmental Defense and the National Wildlife Federation, to request legislative action aimed at reducing GHG emissions (11). Many other N.A. organizations, companies and local governments have created their own GHG emission reduction and sustainability plans. For example, the California Climate Action Registry listed 313 members as of December 2007 (12).

Given the accelerated rate of change, will the United States overtake Europe leading the World toward a sustainable future?

REFERENCES:
(1) WMO/UNEP, Working Group III contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report: “Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change,” Summary for Policymakers, Bangkok, 30 April - 4 May 2007.
(2) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: “Our Common Future,” Oxford University Press, 1987.
(3) Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament: “An Energy Policy for Europe,” SEC(2007)12, Brussels, 1 October 2007.
(4) Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament: “Progress Report on the Sustainable Development Strategy 2007,” SEC(2007)1416, Brussels, 22 October 2007.
(5) Ringman, J. and Leberle, U. “EU strategy for waste and recycling: What is in the box for us?“4th CTP/PTS Packaging Paper and Board Recycling International Symposium, Grenoble, 21 March 2006.
(6) Hirsch, R.L. “World Oil Shortage Scenarios for Mitigation Planning,” ASPO-USA Conference, Houston, 17-20 October 2007.
(7) Kerschner, E.M. and Geraghty, “Climatic Consequences –Investment Implications of a Changing Climate,” Citigroup Research, 19 January 2007.
(8) Llewellyn, J. “The Business of Climate Change –Challenges and Opportunities,” Lehman Brothers, February 2007.
(9) Ayres, McHenry & Associates, Inc. “Survey of 49 Swing Congressional Districts
Regarding Environmental Issues, August 26 - September 2, 2007” Environmental Defense, Alexandria 2007.
(10) The Pew Global Attitudes Project, “No Global Warming Alarm in the U.S., China,” Pew Research Center, Washington, 13 June 2006.
(11) United States Climate Action Partnership, “A Call for Action,” Washington, 22 January 2007.
(12) California Climate Action Registry, “Climate Action News –Monthly Newsletter,” December 2007.