The joint declaration
bears the tagline, “There is no
high-carbon low-cost future for Europe,”
and calls on the EU to increase its greenhouse
gas reduction target to 30% of 11000 levels
by 2020. The sign-on letter lists the following
reasons to augment policy conditions and
spur low-carbon investment:
1.Climate action will
boost economic growth and create new jobs
2.The EU needs the right policies to maintain
its leadership and competitiveness in the
global low carbon economy
3.The EU must invest in its energy security
through greater low carbon energy investments
4.The EU needs to invest now for tomorrow’s
technology and infrastructure to avoid highcarbon
‘lock-in’ and the financial risk of needing
to engineer a rapid shift away from such
stranded assets
5.The recession has made emissions cuts
easier and cheaper but market incentives
are required to spur action
6.‘Carbon leakage’ should be evaluated and
concerns addressed based on real facts and
data about competitiveness
Global IT brands should view supporting
a higher bar for European climate policy
as both economically and globally beneficial.
The EU is already on track to be 20% below
11000 emission levels due to the economic
downturn and previous efforts, and greater
ambition to reduce greenhouse pollution
across Europe will trigger a stronger European
market for IT climate solutions. It will
also hopefully put some fresh wind in the
sagging sails of a global climate agreement.
This declaration is
an important departure from the lobbying
efforts of BusinessEurope, an association
that has pushed against a 30% target and
claims to represent the views of all of
its business members with this position.
Intel, IBM and Microsoft are each named
as members of the Advisory & Support
Group of Business Europe, noted as having
"special status within BusinessEurope".
Today’s show of support
from Google and Sony Europe for the higher
target sets an example for their peers,
which have either aligned themselves on
the wrong side of this issue or need to
be more vocal in differentiating their views
from those of representing trade organizations.
Serge Foucher, Sony
Europe's Executive Vice President, is quoted
in the letter:
Sony Europe fully supports
the manifesto being delivered to the European
institutions. To move beyond a 20% by 2020
target will demonstrate leadership and stimulate
greater action and innovation in tackling
the environmental challenge across Europe.
We believe that this will in turn help develop
long-term sustainable economic development
and job creation... We trust the Commission
takes this opportunity to keep the region
at the forefront of low carbon technology
growth and we look forward to their response.
The complete list of
mostly European signatories includes Acciona,
Alstom, Asda, Atkins, Barilla, BNP Paribas,
BSkyB, Capgemini, Centrica, Climate Change
Capital, Crédit Agricole, DHV Group,
Elopak, Eneco, F&C Asset Management,
GE Energy, Johnson Controls Inc, Kingfisher,
Google, Marks and Spencer, Nike, Philips
Lighting, SKAI Group of Companies, Sony
Europe, Standard Life, Swiss Re, Tryg, Thames
Water, and Vodafone.
There should be signatures
from more of Google and Sony's IT peers
on this letter. But particularly Microsoft,
IBM and Intel, which, as many of the above-mentioned
companies have done, need to clearly establish
their difference of opinion with those trying
to represent them in blocking progress on
climate.
Update: Although Cisco
did not sign onto the October 13th letter,
the company had previously come out as a
proponent of the 30% target. At the Brussels
Economic Forum in May, the V.P. of Cisco
France spoke on a panel called "Tackling
global warming - An opportunity for Europe"
and publicly stated the company's support.
The video of his presentation and the Q&A
is available here. The company reiterated
its position at a conference in Brussels
this week.
+ More
Tuna Industry "Sustainability"
Group Should Act to Save the Tuna!
Below is an update from
Karli Thomas, Greenpeace New Zealand oceans
campaigner:
The folks at the International
Seafood Sustainability Foundation have turned
their attention to tuna transshipment "ISSF
Urges IATTC To Fix
Transshipment Loophole."
You might not guess
it from their name, but these guys are a
pretty influential club that includes many
of the biggest canned tuna brands of the
world. Since the group was founded, they've
been getting involved in tuna management
discussions. It makes sense that they should
be interested in the sustainability of tuna
stocks - it is after all what their businesses
are built upon.
Greenpeace wholeheartedly
agrees that action is needed on transshipment.
We have been calling for transshipment at
sea to be banned altogether - it's a typical
modus operandi of pirate fishing vessels
stealing fish and laundering their catches.
Repeatedly, Greenpeace expeditions in have
shown this practice is being used by foreign
fishing vessels in the Pacific high seas
to steal tuna from
Pacific Island countries (last year we caught
two Taiwanese longline vessels red-handed
making an illegal transshipment in the high
seas - they're now featured on our blacklist
of pirate fishing vessels here and here).
What makes this plea
from ISSF sound a little hollow is that
they do not simply take action themselves.
It's a bit like a smoker realising their
health is in decline and deciding to lobby
their government to make smoking illegal.
Not buying a pack a day would be a more
direct and effective way of solving the
problem, if indeed they were committed to
doing so.
ISSF member companies
account over 70% of the world's tuna. The
power to shift fishing practices on the
water is well and truly in their hands,
so Greenpeace challenges them to flex their
considerable muscle to create positive change.
If ISSF is genuinely concerned about transshipment
and its role in overfishing and illegal
fishing, then it should adopt conservation
measures to oblige every one of its members
to simply stop buying tuna from fishing
companies that engage in tuna transshipment.
Much of the problem
would be solved there and then, and the
task of fisheries managers to enact a transshipment
ban would become considerably easier once
markets dried up.
This would be just one
small step for ISSF to take in order to
start cleaning up of the tuna operations
of their member companies and suppliers.
Two other critical measures they must take
are to stop buying tuna caught with the
use of Fish Aggregation Devices (which lead
to bycatch of juvenile tunas, sharks, turtles
and other marine life) and to stop buying
tuna from the Pacific high seas pockets,
which are not only the location of many
tuna transshipments, but also the venue
for much of the region's illegal, unreported
and unregulated (aka pirate) fishing.
Together, these three
measures would vastly improve the prospects
for the world's beleaguered tuna stocks
- without which ISSF member companies would
be trading in empty tin cans.
