Environmental summits lose value as past pledges go unmet

Paul Waldie in the Toronto Globe and Mail: As more than 100 world leaders descend on Rio de Janeiro for a global conference on the environment this week that’s supposed to build on the 1992 Earth Summit, some environmentalists say these large international gatherings have lost their value.

 “We don’t need the heads of state here, frankly,” Pat Mooney, executive director of ETC Group, an Ottawa-based environmental organization, said from Rio. “Quite honestly the grandstanding around some of these treaties, it was nonsense and we knew it was nonsense at the time.”

Mr. Mooney and others say progress on environmental protection is more likely to come “bottom up,” from regional initiatives and non-traditional players and not from big international conventions.

“The expectation that a lot of formal top-down multilateral agreements are going to pave the way, no one believes that any more,” said Hank Venema of the Winnipeg-based International Institute for Sustainable Development. He said better results can be found in agreements like the Natural Capital Declaration, signed by chief executives of financial institutions from around the world pledging to incorporate environmental factors in their operations. “The hope is basically that the bottom up, the regional initiatives, the local stories, can be scaled up and replicated,” Mr. Venema said. “From my perspective, that’s where the momentum lies and that’s where the hope lies.”...

Two-faced corporate support for denial

Union of Concerned Scientists shines a light on some corporate hypocrisy: An overwhelming scientific consensus supports the reality of human-induced global warming and the importance of prompt action to limit its impact. Constructive, science-based public discussion of climate change impacts and policy solutions is urgently needed. Unfortunately, many U.S. companies are using their influence to muddy the waters—casting unwarranted doubt on the science, adding confusion to the policy discussion, and holding back or slowing down action on solutions.

The 2012 UCS report, A Climate of Corporate Control, looks at statements and actions on climate science and policy by 28 U.S. companies, shows how these contributions can be problematic, and suggests steps that Congress, the public, the media, and companies themselves can take to address the problem.

Corporations have the right, of course, to weigh in on public policy issues that affect their interests. But too often they do so irresponsibly, misrepresenting and misusing science at the public's expense, and in recent years their influence has grown.

Corporations skew the national dialogue on climate policy in a variety of ways—making inconsistent statements across different venues, attacking science through industry-supported organizations, and taking advantage of the secrecy allowed them by current legal and regulatory structures.

Some corporations are contradictory in their actions, expressing concern about the threat of climate change in some venues—such as company websites, Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, annual reports, or statements to Congress—while working to weaken policy responses to climate change in others....