A Calgary-based energy company is warming up to its image as an environmental leader by joining an influential international coalition to combat climate change.
But while the initiative has been applauded by environmentalists, a public policy think-tank cautions that the science behind global warming should be questioned more closely by companies before investing stakeholder dollars into the “green” process.
Suncor Energy Inc. says it has teamed up with Partnership for Climate Action to tackle what it calls “a global problem that needs global solutions.”
“We thought the timing was right,” says Suncor spokesman Darlene Crowell. “There are some pretty hefty players involved and we like to think we’re pretty big too.”
Other partners in the coalition, brought together by the U.S. advocacy group Environmental Defense, include industry giants BP, Shell International, DuPont and the Canadian aluminum company Alcan. In total, these companies produced a combined emission level in 1990 of 360 million tonnes of greenhouse gases, which are made up of mostly methane and carbon dioxide and are created primarily by burning fossil fuels.
The coalition has set a goal of reducing their emissions by an annual reduction of 80 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2010. The initiative includes promoting the trading of emission “credits” with other companies to reduce emissions worldwide.
Environmental Defense executive director Fred Krupp said in a statement that the partnership shows companies can cut greenhouse gas pollution while continuing to provide products to customers and profits to shareholders.
Added Suncor president and CEO Rick George: “We are pleased to be working alongside other leading organizations who share our belief in the power of market mechanisms to contribute to climate-change solutions.”
Crowell says the practice of trading emission credits will help the company cut their net emissions by 2010 to six per cent below 1990 levels — meeting targets set by Canada and other countries in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
“We think that’s a substantive target considering our growth,” notes Crowell, adding the company is anticipating the implementation of a meaningful credit-for-early-action program in Canada. “Because of growth, we may not be able to reduce our own emissions as much as we would like, and another company may be doing an even better job than they had planned. So we buy those credits from them . . . it’s a market mechanism that capitalistic societies can buy into.”
More than 700 Canadian companies, including Suncor, have already signed on to a voluntary climate change registry program to cut emissions. Crowell says that Ottawa has been slow to approve a credit system that might encourage other companies to step up to the plate, “but we remain optimistic.”
“Clearly, some sectors of industry are waiting for those credit programs before they take more substantive action,” she says.
The Climate Action partnership was applauded by the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental think-tank. “I think it’s a positive step,” says climate change director Robert Hornung, adding it should “send a signal” to government that companies want leadership on the issue in setting out industry-wide standards.
But he says he doesn’t expect a landslide of other energy companies to follow Suncor’s lead. “From the beginning on this issue, there have been a few companies who have looked a little longer term, tried to position themselves to be competitive in a future marketplace where greenhouse gas emissions are costly.”
While those in the partnership are significant in the corporate world, “they are still very much a minority group within the industry,” says Hornung. “And most of industry are not leaders, but followers.”
While the institute applauds Suncor’s support of emission credit trading, it still opposes further oilsands production which Hornung says is contributing to a host of environmental problems. “It’s a package of issues that have to be addressed.”
Meanwhile, a senior analyst with the Fraser Institute’s Centre for Risk and Regulation warns many important questions about climate change remain unresolved.
“If we spend more on global warming, then we have less money available on other serious environmental problems,” notes Laura Jones. “I think there’s no question that the scientific debate that’s going on needs to be presented more clearly and in a more balanced way to the public before we can commit to any of the kind of costly solutions that have been proposed.”
It has been advantageous for politicians and companies to use the climate change issue to “look green,” she adds. “There’s been so much momentum on the one side of the issue . . . you’re put in a position where you don’t sound politically correct if you start asking questions about the science of climate change.”
But Crowell says it is important for Suncor to move forward with the partnership, even though the science is not yet conclusive.
“More and more, we know that emissions issues are going to be included on the balance sheet of new projects,” she says. “The prudent thing to do is assume it is an issue, and act now. If you wait to act, it’s going to be too late.”
