Comments on: Aspen’s Schendler On Corporate Greening: ‘Who Are We Kidding?’

By: Sarah Irving

Sarah Irving — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:54:33 +0000

These kind of concerns are very legitimate – ‘CSR’ is becoming a massive industry, but unfortunately one that is more akin to marketing than to the real operations of most large companies.
The abolition of petroleum lobbies in the USA would be one step. The diversionary tactics created by the biofuel and carbon offset industries are another, in that they effectively allow corporations and consumers to continue in an energy-profligate, ‘business as usual’ way rather than addressing the serious demand-side changes needed to act properly on climate change. Tax breaks on renewables and taxes on fuel (especially aviation fuel) are one necessary way to go, as is the introduction of mandatory and standardised CSR reporting requirements for corporations so that those trying to greenwash their way into credibility. Of course this is only a start and probably one that is too late. For data on which companies are really making changes, see http://www.corporatecritic.org (B2B) or http://www.ethiscore.org (for consumers).

By: Lorenzo Rambaldi

Lorenzo Rambaldi — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:30:45 +0000

I’d like to erase at once petroleum lobbies… We have to change our living way. We have a blog abou these issues, come and visit us http://www.energyislife.org

By: AK

AK — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:25:24 +0000

He has got a point. Sustainability as a key part of business is still in its infancy.

Standardized metrics should be the baseline, so that companies can’t cherry pick the impressive reductions in intensity metrics.

Conflating RECs with offsets is an error by Businessweek and Schendler.

RECs are perfectly appropriate for offsetting grid electric consumption. It is in California statues, WRGIS & Green-e.

Carbon Offsets on the other hand are the wild west. Caveat Emptor.