“Washington, D.C. – The National Center for Public Policy Research and the Project 21 black leadership network challenged senior Caterpillar, Inc. officials at the company’s stockholder meeting Wednesday, asking them to explain Caterpillar’s decision to join the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), which is lobbying for caps on carbon dioxide emissions.
“USCAP’s goal of achieving mandatory federal restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions would drive up the cost of energy and disproportionately harm low income people, Caterpillar’s customers, and shareholders.
“During the meeting’s question-and-answer session, Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli questioned Caterpillar executives about whether the company performed a complete cost-benefit analysis on the effects a cap-and-trade policy on carbon emissions would have on Caterpillar, its customers and America’s poor prior to the company joining the group, which lobbies for such policies.
“I asked the head of Caterpillar, James Owens, three different times if the company had done a cost-benefit analysis and he said ‘no,'” said Ms. Borelli. “He also said that he was not planning to do one in the future. Unfortunately, America will be paying for this incompetence in the form of rising energy costs.”
“Mr. Owens also acknowledged that he had received and read the coalition letter sent to him by over 70 national and state policy groups and representatives of mining, ranching, forestry, construction and agricultural industries, urging him to withdraw Caterpillar’s membership in USCAP. The coalition letter to Mr. Owens is available at www.nationalcenter.org/caterpillar_climate.pdf.
“The Congressional Budget Office reported in April that the restrictions sought by USCAP would especially harm the poorest fifth of the U.S. population. As a percentage of wages, the poorest quintile would pay nearly double the costs borne by the richest quintile for energy. In addition, the CBO study found that “current workers and investors in [energy] industries would experience costs in the form of lower wages, job losses, and reduced stock values” as a result of a cap-and-trade emissions policy.
“Tom Borelli, senior fellow with The National Center for Public Policy Research and portfolio manager for the Free Enterprise Action Fund, asked Mr. Owens if he had read the CBO report. Mr. Owens responded that he had not.
“Ms. Borelli also pointed out to Mr. Owens that Caterpillar’s involvement with USCAP had already lost the company at least one major customer, Murray Energy Corporation. Mr. Owens acknowledged this and said he was sorry about it.
“It’s outrageous that a CEO would harm his key customers without doing any due diligence to determine the impact on his customers and shareholders,” said Dr. Borelli. “This is why shareholders need to demand a debate regarding the impacts of cap-and-trade on their investment. Owens’ ignorance on the issue of cap-and-trade could open up his company to shareholder lawsuits.”
“After only ten minutes into a scheduled 30-minute question-and-answer session, Caterpillar executives abruptly ended the meeting.
“The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, non-profit educational foundation based in Washington, D.C. Project 21, a program supported by The National Center, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.”
End of Media Release.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This entire problem would go away if they started producing solar-powered bulldozers, etc.
When will they ever learn? Sustainable machinery is the wave!
So all you dinosaur smarties, what GW risk assumptions would you put into yuor CBA if you were them? And how would you do that?
And, beyond just the supposed risks determined by the lab coats, what’s the equation for factoring God into it? (I’m confident that rog can put his organic vegetable & chicken stew aside to advise us here). Eg probability that God won’t let climate change harm his favourite creations (are we 100% certain of this, or do you hav a leetle beet of doubt?)
You’d have to start by surveying the religious practices of your staff, customers, investors & suppliers etc. But you’d need to determine if they were geniunely faithful Christians, not just the garden variety of hypocrits. If Caterpillar is relying too heavily on exports to the heathen ME then their business could be screwed when God strikes that market with warming & pestilence. Hence science strike out & says the localised impacts of GW are unpredictable. Flaw in their approach is they haven’t overlaid their map of the globe with markers of Christian practice. Forget long-term weather stations, they could use proxies for genuine Christian practice, eg no. happy clapper camps per population per state.
Well I guess they would say that wouldn’t they? Being good ol’ boys and all.
You have to smile about NCPPR’s concern for the underdog though. ROTFL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff
I mean let’s work out who we’re dealing with here. Probably as credible as Greenpeace arguing they should be doing more on emissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Public_Policy_Research
Anyway needless to say why you’re probably not going to be seeing any of these schemes implemented. Too much vested interest.
Fair enuff.
He should be sacked by his Board.
His primary responsibilities are to his shareholders , staff and customers.
Any significant decision he makes has to be legal,ethical and in the interests of the above.
Unless he can justify the action on the grounds of a tangible marketing benefit , dump your caterpillar shares!
On the other hand maybe he should be knighted by his shareholders as he pre-positions Caterpillar for a carbon neutral future world. And maybe NCPPR are just another astroturf bunch of scumbags.
Still there is something satisfying about levelling a bunch of trees with a couple of D9s. Better than viagra really and gets you away from the whining wife and pesky kids. Great product.
The climate cretins can fulminate all they want but the simple facts in law are that due to this failure to assess the impact on the company itself, the clock is already ticking on the shareholder’s class action for negligence.
All the other guff about risks to the company from AGW are only of relevance when the shareholders are given either the opportunity to compare broader costs with specific costs, or at least be assured that the board members did so.
Full credit to the customer that withdrew their business from Caterpillar. This sort of cheap posturing, of the sort also done recently by the CEO of CBus Funds Management in Australia, needs to get the response they deserve.
If his actions were well considered and properly costed to take real commercial advantage of a “carbon neutral future world” then he would deserve that multi-$M bonus Luke – wonder if we’d hear any of the complaints from the ususal suspects about an ” obscene” bonus for a CEO who was going green?
Just wondering….
Anyway , by his own admission he doesn’t have a clue about the impact of the decision so as a ruthless scientific rationalist Luke , I’m sure you’d agree he has to go!
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=59
The National Center for Public Policy Research is a free market think tank that issues publications on a wide variety of policy issues. NCPPR often acts as a bridge between the DC-based conservative think tanks and more grassroots anti-regulatory groups.
NCPPR’s John P. McGovern M.D. Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs hosts the “Global Warming Information Center” (www.nationalcenter.org/Kyoto.html). The site features the writings NCPPR’s climate change skeptics as well as outside skeptics like Willie Soon and S. Fred Singer. NCPPR President Amy Moritz Ridenour created the NCPPR-sponsored site Envirotruth.org, which has a section listing the “myths” of climate change. “Envirotruth” links to ActivistCash.com, a food and tobacco lobby front that bashes progressive and environmental groups, including Greenpeace. NCPPR is part of the Alliance for American network, the State Policy Network, and the Cooler Heads Coalition. (4/04)
Though NCPPR often accuses environmentalists of basing policy decisions on emotion rather than science, Amy Ridenour of NCPPR once justified her organization’s use of fundraising scare tactics: “It’s just that you’re competing with a lot of other organizations. People seem to respond better to emotion than they do with letters that have lots and lots of facts.” (San Francisco Examiner, February 8, 1998)
NCPPR wouldn’t be just trying to hold “the line” would they. Wouldn’t want any rash of modified business practices getting a run.
Anyway if there is a classholders action I guess some of CP’s execs might be joining previous (until 2004) NCPPR board member, Jack Abramoff, in the slammer.
Wonder if it’s responsible for Caterpillar to take advice from organisations like NCPPR that had big time crooks like Abramhoff as key board members.
The list is simply incredible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff
Skanky !
Basically – you wouldn’t believe one single thing NCPPR says !
Pretty big call Luke – ” not one single thing”?
Is that just NCPPR or all advocacy groups seeking ” policy decisions (based ) on emotion rather than science”?
Anyway , I’m happy to adopt universal condemnation of all advocacy groups whose principle is ” People seem to respond better to emotion than …… lots and lots of facts.”
Trouble is – where does that leave the non-endangered whales?
Luke,
Following on from your comment that we can’t trust the NCPPR.
How should one interpret the following text from the above media release (assuming you accept that the NCPPR does exist and has the potential to influence environmental politics and did issue the media releas):
“I asked the head of Caterpillar, James Owens, three different times if the company had done a cost-benefit analysis and he said ‘no,'” said Ms. Borelli. “He also said that he was not planning to do one in the future. Unfortunately, America will be paying for this incompetence in the form of rising energy costs.”
So Luke, what do you reckon..
1. Did Ms Borelli ask the question three times?
2. Did Ms Borelli ask the question once?
3. Should Ms Borelli have asked the question?
4. Did the CEO answer “We have done a cost: benefit anaysis”.
5. Should the CEO have answered “We have done a cost: benefit?”
These questions, I think, are more relevant than whether or not they are funded by Exxon?
Just as Herman Daly asked the World Bank more than 3 times if the entire planet is a subset of the economy, or if the economy is a subset of a wider environment.
Firstly, to have conversations rather than the petty fights on this blog, you need to recognise and state your operating paradigm.
CEOs make loads of strategic decisions without doing a CBA on each of them. A CBA is a tool to use in appropriate situations only. It wouldn’t help given that the pencil pushers would have no bloody idea to even start calculating on such unknowns of such unknown magnitude and uncertain risk. Hence the CEO tries to infuence the unknowns instead. This is the EXACT reason why many corporate leaders are now pushing govts for action – to share & therefore mitigate the exposure (= risk = $$) of individual corporations. If govt policy reduces risk and uncertainties then corporations can innovate and invest. Otherwise faced with such risks, they’ll be too conservative in their strategic decisions and it will hurt their financial performance and the economy.
Who here has delved into the success factors that make good companies built to last? What’s the average lifespan of a large corporation and what usually leads to its demise? You gotta start thinking bigger pic like this CEO has done. Think how companies today get charged through the nose for remediation of sites for toxins that didn’t cross their radar years ago when they started making the mess. A stitch today as granny would say may also help corporations to suffer less pain when the future consequences are realised.
Well Jen IMO of course. They’re a completely compromised bunch of lobbyists. Just do some background research. I reckon the depth of intrigue and issues would be beyond comprehension. It’s way beyond Exxon.
I doubt they’re fair dinkum and have interests at heart other than their own agenda. Be interesting to canvas a wider view. Does Caterpillar have a view. Maybe they do?
It’s their press release too. Who says this is accurate – they’re an astroturf outfit – come on !
Luke, you didn’t answer even one of my questions!
Well you never answer mine either. Your questions are leading. Jen you’ve presented no research on the other side – merely uncritically accepting the spin group’s assertions. So why present only one side of the story from a disreputable spin organisation whose directors can end up in jail? Quality of evidence is?
Always prefer a conversation to a petty fight Pinxi – provided disagreement isn’t deemed to be the differentiating factor betwen the two.
CEO’s make decisions all the time – that’s what they’re paid for.
And no – not all are subjected to a CBA.
But this decision could have significant long term consequences and what is it’s basis?
Big pic?
Doesn’t cut it in my view – the threat/opportunity is unquantifiable and so is the cost. Surely hard to identify a benefit from this except if it’s reputation enhancement.
If so , then a CBA should have been conducted.
Well Jim we have the latest IPCC Working Group reports, the AP6 and G8 declarations of intended action, BP and Shell affirming a need for action, the Stern report etc. How many more reports or declarations would you like?
OK enough reports until you get the desired answer?
Luke,
I posted a media release that is otherwise unlikely to see the light of day. We both know ABC Online posts WWF and Greenpeace media releases but would be unlikely to post something from a bunch of global warming skeptics.
I didn’t endorse it.
You commented the organisation is funded by Exxon and unreliable. I said so which bits are unreliable?
I don’t care that they are funded by Exxon. As I’ve previously commented, thank goodness someone funds a contrarian perspective on some of these important environmental issues.
there’s no shortage of right wing media domination in aust or the rest of the western world these days Jen. Besides which, that’s a lousy reply to Luke’s point becuase you don’t take on a communication role for ‘greenie’ press releases that are unlikely to get media coverage. ie you gotta admit your bias, ideally acknowledge your belief system that drives your actions & amusing replies
Jim don’t disagree the decision should have been properly examined, but a CBA by itself requires arriving at + & – figures via accepted corporate accounting methods with a sufficient degree of certainty that this issue lacks. It’s a mute point
Exxon is the least of it. It’s their modus operandi is my issue. And hence my cynical approach to their “interest” in the issue especially their overture to “the poor”.
But yes to yourself and Jim – Caterpillar needs to carefully consider its business position from both pro and anti-viewpoints.
It seems Shell and BP have made some determinations.
Is not the ABC airing TGGWS? Are not the the national newspaper’s columnists dedicated to anti-AGW ?
Anyway I’ll decamp and give others a crack.
And those reports say precisely what about the threat/opportunity/costs for earth moving equipment manufacturers Luke?
In fact , aside from GW , nuclear, conventional and renewable energy research, which corporations are able to make any assessment with even modest confidence levels about long term strategic impacts of GW?
Every time we stray from the rational to the political we get tripped up.
Let’s concentrate on making changes of substance -these are in my opinion in order of priority;
1. the phasing out of carbon fuelled electricity generators with nuclear
2. massive increases in research into clean coal and renewables
3. the phase out/replacement of petroleum
All of these however subject to two major caveats;
* the scientific evidence ( not political theory ) for catastrophic economic and social costs associated with AGW clearly outweighs the alternative – adaptation and;
* these measures are global though obviously weighted to those nations who are the major CO2 emitters and those who can afford to change
If AGW is a serious scientifically based global threat then fluff like signing onto meaningless,poncing, lobbying initiatives should be called for what it is.
Back between emails – Luke/Pinxi , there are certainly some journalists who are AGW sceptics – but surely you’re not claiming that the media is overwhelmingly or even on balance anti-AGW ?
That would strain the bounds of credibility.
No need for the invective – there are some who disagree with you – uniformity of opinion isn’t necessary ; particilarly if the theory is sound.
On Lukes perverted logic the presence of one past member now doing a stretch renders the entire organisation non kosher. So what does that mean for the ALP in Qld who have had a former parliamentary party leader do a stretch for paedophilia and another MP recently do the same? And I seem to recall something on a similar line about a certain ALP Senator from the NT and another ALP Senator who appears to be linked to an insurance fire, the suicide of a stock broker and the extraordinary trajectory of the deceased girlfriend of the said stockbrokers private secretary as she plummeted from the Gap at Watson’s Bay.
And when Luke has managed to reconcile these little inconsistencies we might get around to discussing the past drug dealing activities of certain green activists. You know the ones, Luke, the ones that kill other people’s kids.
You sleazy hypocrite.
I have to agree with Luke, Jennifer, you don’t seem to answer many questions.
“”It’s outrageous that a CEO would harm his key customers without doing any due diligence to determine the impact on his customers and shareholders,” said Dr. Borelli. “This is why shareholders need to demand a debate regarding the impacts of cap-and-trade on their investment. Owens’ ignorance on the issue of cap-and-trade could open up his company to shareholder lawsuits.”‘
It’s a matter of externalities. Physics operates in a world in which these don’t exist, economics does. As much as it would be nice to think that the only issue is the cost of energy due to a companies policies, the real world which is undergoing global warming is going to be affecting everyone either way. I know that The Australian likes to print stories about some people benefiting from warming, the overall effect will be disruption of eco-systems across the globe, which includes us, and Caterpillars shareholders. I think Caterpillar has a responsibility to more people than just them. It will cost Caterpillar, and us, but it will be better than the alternative. We already know it is going to cost Caterpillar money, what will the policies of all industries and individuals cost us?
SJT,
The issue of the cost of energy to Caterpillar wasn’t raised here.
The matter of the CEO of Caterpillar deciding to put jobs at risk and spend his shareholders money on an initiative which could on the face of it be directly contrary to their interests, was.
It is compounded by the fact that no credible rationale appears to have been presented for the decision.
And yes The Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21914076-601,00.html
ran a story about possible benefits of GW.
If the story was innaccurate – fine ,let’s debate it.
If not , what does it matter?
If it’s true then is the AGW hypotheses invalidated?
Is it that flimsy?
This is precisely why many AGW proponents are compared to religious fundamentalists – they acknowledge only the narrowest of perspectives.
The self-righteousness of their argument does them so much harm – and may come back to bite.
Any wonder the creationists are with them?
Must have pulled Grott’s chain pretty hard. But far from his best material – lacked sarcasm – an irrelevant little dummy spit from Mr Biffo – something weird about ALP and greenie drug runners (LMAO) – WTF – who cares. I’m sure the NCPPR is just his sort of shonky skank outfit. He’d fit in well.
Jim – well the answer is move to Canada. (Can’t go to Europe as it’s full of spivs). It will be beaut. Mottlakov Cocktail will be running many Caterpillars in Terraform Corporation to put in his big Canadian drainage system. Making a “Mottsa” with a lifetime membership of the NCPPR. Probably head-hunting suitable talent for them.
And yes saw the Australian story – has some relevant positive aspects. It’s not the first time we’ve discussed positives for North American agriculture here on the blog though. But jeez – do a global pluses and minuses balance sheet.
Frankly I’d compare sceptics to religious fundamentalists – rabid, aggressive, denialist of evidence, stuck in the old ways, and very pessimistic about possibilities for change. Continually adding up only one side of the balance sheet and jumping around for any old dodgy hypothesis to hang the next anti-AGW case on.
Tell you what – the good ol’ boys from NCPPR are gonna be sure busy. So many shareholder meetings to hijack and such little time. And gee aren’t those greenies sneaky. They’ve drugged the management of all these coporations and made them believe in AGW nonsense. Holey Doley ! If they’d only had Mottsa and Schillsy there to set them straight.
United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP)
http://www.us-cap.org/
is a group of businesses and leading environmental organizations that have come together to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. USCAP has issued a landmark set of principles and recommendations to underscore the urgent need for a policy framework on climate change. More >
USCAP Members Include:
Alcan Inc.
Alcoa
American International Group, Inc. (AIG)
Boston Scientific Corporation
BP America Inc.
Caterpillar Inc.
ConocoPhillips
Deere & Company
The Dow Chemical Company
Duke Energy
DuPont
Environmental Defense
Exxon (OK just kidding !)
FPL Group, Inc.
General Electric
General Motors Corp.
Johnson & Johnson
Marsh, Inc.
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
The Nature Conservancy
PepsiCo
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Shell
Siemens Corporation
World Resources Institute
They seem to have worked on some report.
“Our solutions-based report, titled A Call for Action (PDF- 1.18 MB), is the result of a year-long collaboration. It lays out a blueprint for a mandatory economy-wide, market-driven approach to climate protection.”
Probably just cobbled that together under greenie gun-point. Boy wait till their shareholders find out. There’ll be blood on the wall.
USCAP’s Six Principles
Account for the global dimensions of climate change;
Create incentives for technology innovation;
Be environmentally effective;
Create economic opportunity and advantage;
Be fair to sectors disproportionately impacted; and
Reward early action
In some more detail:
Create Economic
Opportunity and Advantage
Addressing climate change must be achieved in a highly costeffective
manner that allows for economic growth in both
the developed world and emerging economies. A climate protection
program must use the power of the market through
reliance on institutional and regulatory structures that establish
clear targets and timeframes. Requirements for reducing
emissions may vary between sectors and should be designed
to promote sustained economic growth and prompt, efficient
action in the shortest time reasonably achievable, compatible
with the goal of preventing dangerous human interference
with the climate.
Be Fair
Some economic sectors, geographic regions, and income groups
may be disproportionately impacted by both climate change
impacts and mandatory GHG reductions. Any climate protection
program needs to take account of these impacts and
provide appropriate assistance to those disadvantaged or disproportionately
impacted by such program.
Encourage Early Action
Prior to the effective date of mandatory emission limits, every
reasonable effort should be made to reduce emissions. Those
companies that take early action should be given appropriate
credit or otherwise be rewarded for their early reductions in
GHG emissions.
Can see if you were an anti-AGW outfit this sort of nonsense would have to rapped on the head pretty quickly. I mean we can’t have anything pro-active happening. Gee I reckon the NCPPR needs the full forces of the CEI, Marshall Institute and Lavoisier Society on this one. This is serious stuff.
Hi Luke,
Interesting list…I see that Dow Chemical corporation is included, you know Greenpeace’s arc enemy number one( you know the guys who used to manufacture DDT ).
“Well Jim we have the latest IPCC Working Group reports, the AP6 and G8 declarations of intended action, BP and Shell affirming a need for action, the Stern report etc. How many more reports or declarations would you like?
OK enough reports until you get the desired answer?”
How about one that doesn’t present extreme, high end computer modelled scenarios as reality?
Anne: It is highly likely corporate empires like Dow will remain practical despite their old image at GP. I have never doubted the ability of big manufacturing companies to notice change in any environment including the political arena. Pure policy outfits remain the problem though, those not directly linked to resources and markets.
This poke at Caterpillar ignores their independent access to environment facts based on a global operating base at the grass roots. Why would such a large scale organization need to remain conservative re AGW warning signs? Emissions aside they will be in the front line of any remedial works.
This thread shows up ignorance in some sectors regarding how well companies like Caterpillar have integrated with Australian society over the years. Caterpillar has grown with local engineering and innovation. See Caterpillar/Elphinstone type links.
http://www.ausindustry.gov.au/content/content.cfm?ObjectID=84691151-3793-4CDD-A97DC1721D522020&L3Keyword=ausindustry%20hotline
There is an article on ACERT engine technology, with 500m R&D here in Engine Room April ed.
http://www.energypower.com.au/PDF/Engine%20Room/Engine%20Room%20April%2007.pdf
Alternatively;
http://www.infolink.com.au/articles/17/0C03A417.aspx
Who else needs “Public Policy Research” organizations when it comes to developing new gas powered transport engines?
Yes spot on Gavin – plenty of room for Caterpillar to GHG innovate and so you can see in examples like http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/458312/1620
where they’re heading. So we’re seeing here the usual doomsaying economic alarmist reaction of the denialists. The sky will fall in. The world will end. oooooo the poor poor. (“Jeez does anyone know anyone is actually poor – no – oh well WTF”). Basically we’re dealing with denialist religious fundamentalism.
e.g. “How about one that doesn’t present extreme, high end computer modelled scenarios as reality?”
– Extreme
– High End
– Scenarios – reality
Yep. Cherry picked alarmism.
OK – we’ll just go with the paleo record which says if you get substantial changes in climate you get major extinction events. We’ll just go with that.
All those species that will move across all that farmland, barriers and oceans singing – “pick up your troubles in your old kit bag and smile smile smile”
Dow & DDT – no problemo. It’s about ability to change for the better Ann. As Gavin said above ! (and hey you can still use it for malaria)
Gee all those corporations must sure be dumb to sign on to change. And all those governments. All duped into action. All paralysed from independent thought. Gee horrid thought – maybe they’re being advised by “spivs” too. Wow.
Have we mentioned Greepeace lately. No. It’s all their fault I tell you. Greenie commie socialist neo-marxist scum that they are.
Luke,
Are you really suggesting that “all those corporations and governments” have been duped?
Not by Exxon surely?
I just thought they were going with the flow, what’s fashionable, and not really considering the consequences in much details … there is a difference.
As an aside Caterpillar bought out Perkins Engines about 1998
I don’t think these corporations invest in new energy systems on Versace’s recommendations. Might go and buy a package of USCAP corporations shares.
Now Jen – fess up – I reckon I have you guys on toast here. Who knew who was in USCAP or the principles they were on about. Truth now.
It’s all about change you see:
How many Contrarians does it take to change a lighbulb?
None: This lightbulb is perfectly fine and does not need changing. It is not dark.
How many Libertarians does it take to change a lightbulb?
One : It needs changing because I don’t want to sit in the dark, but next door can see to their own lighting arrangements.
How many Christian Scientists does it take to change a lightbulb?
None: There is nothing wrong with that lightbulb, you just believe it isn’t lighting up when you work the switch.
How many Empiricalists does it take to change a lightbulb?
One : And I see the lightbulb has gone out because I’m in the dark and working the switch has no effect.
How many Anarchists does it take to change a lightbulb?
None : Smash it instead, and see what comes out of the pieces!
How many Existentialists does it take to change a lightbulb?
One : And it’s entirely up to me, so if I’d rather sit in the dark, then I do, no one else will do anything about it and it’s entirely my responsibility.
“OK – we’ll just go with the paleo record which says if you get substantial changes in climate you get major extinction events. We’ll just go with that.” Too true.
Jennifer, the costs of reducing GHGs will be high, but not as high as the alternative. The upside will be that there is a lot of fat out there that can be easily trimmed. Although when that fat is easily trimmed, it is called a rort for some reason :(. Just as we saw with the massive recent rise in fuel prices, it’s pretty easy to just drive a smaller car, and it gets you there just as quickly, and if we had been as smart as WA, we would have built rail lines alongside all the new freeways we are building, and had a massive rise in public transport usage. Makes sense, the land is there to be used, the freeways are being built along busy transport corridors. Investment in heavy rail has been seriously lacking, and now the Victorian Government is playing catch up as fast as it can.
Why are you always so anxious to let everyone know you’ve “won” Luke?
Relax!
I read their website , looked at the membership list and examined the principles before my first comment.
None of it makes a jot of difference to Jen’s initial post – Caterpillar’s CEO and maybe many others for all I know – are funding a lobbying initiative to introduce Government regulation which will probably have a direct negative impact on their respective corporations on the basis of a non-quantifiable risk/benefit ranging from catastrophic AGW OR moderate warming such as we’re seeing now which may or may not come to pass.
And that isn’t visionsry or big pic or anything else – it’s simply bad stewardship.
You think because they have nice sounding principles the debate is over – you blokes really need certainty don’t you?
And just to balance the ledger;
A Greenie runs a stop sign and gets pulled over by a policeman.
As you would expect, the Greenie is an arrogant dickhead who thinks that he is smarter than the cop because of his education and training.
He decides to prove this to himself and have some fun at the cop’s expense.
Cop says, “Licence, please.”
Greenie says, “What for?”
Cop says, “You didn’t come to a complete stop at the stop sign.”
Greenie says, “I slowed down, and no one was coming.”
Cop says, “You still didn’t come to a complete stop. License, please.”
Greenie says, “What’s the difference?”
Cop says, “The difference is, you have to come to a complete stop, that’s the law. Licence, please!”
Greenie says, “If you can show me the legal difference between slow down and stop, I’ll give you my licence and you give me the fine, if not you let me go and no fine.
Cop says, “Okay, get out of your vehicle, sir.” At this point, the cop takes out his baton and starts beating the Greenie over the head while saying: “Do you want me to stop, or just slow down?”
And finally the top 10 list of signs you are a Greenie :
10. You’re furious that pounds kill pets, so you support an organization which kills pets.
9. You think coal pollution is better than nuclear waste, and then you complain about the quality of our air.
8. You think “risk assessment” is a board game.
7. You constantly complain about layoffs, but you think losing millions of jobs (and billions of dollars) is okay if it helps reduce the air temperature by a fraction of a degree. You think people promoting the alternative of sound technological solutions are crackpots.
6. You’re pissed off when people serve you meat, but you act surprised when people blast you for wanting to enforce veganism on your future innocent babies.
5. You think the precautionary principle is AOK, except when it’s applied against you. Then it becomes a matter of principles.
4. You get mad when anyone says you think other animals are more important than people, but you cheer when hunters die or animal researchers are threatened with their grandmother’s corpse.
3. You think “The Tragedy of the Commons” is a Shakespeare play.
2. You say we should respect all life, then you gulp antibiotics. The hypocrisy of this doesn’t register in your mind at all.
1. You’re so concerned about third-world hunger that you campaign to ban life-saving GM foods from Africa.
Nobody gets it yet.
The cost-benefit analysis *was* done. There’s lots of money in people thinking you’re being green. Look at BP advertising “green” petroleum.
Folks, they’ve figured out how to be green and take your money too, just like governments have figured out how to be green and take your money.
Geesh. Get a clue. Anyone will be green if there’s money behind it.
And if there was no money behind it, nobody would be ‘green.’
Come on Jim – you’re being a pessimist again.
And you’re getting hysterical over a yank think tank puff piece designed to get you going. Positioning the Caterpillar Corporation outside the mainstream of other major business and in an world where strong signals are being sent by the AP6 and G8 is irresponsible. Caterpillar want to be inside the tent and involved in setting the rules.
USCAP is looking for strong signals in a stable operating envionment. And a comprehensive package of solutions that rewards effort. Not some up and down vague schmozzle.
“know that I’ve won” Jeez. Playing with your leg Jim. You contrarians are a sour angry lot. Do greenies have more fun? But your jokes indicate all may not be lost (yet). I didn’t tick many of the 1-10 list.
Schillsbo – you may find a bit more in than advertising. People don’t want window dressing and the electorate is cynical as anything.
Lets face it Luke, you came upon a smelly opportunity to assign guilt by association and rather than step over it you wallowed in it like a mongrel dog. And all to divert attention from the Caterpillar Boards professional duty of care.
But this is not new from the planet ponces. Any one with reasonable doubts about gonzo scarenarios is labelled a paid oil company hack.
And no, Luke. You weren’t just joking with your claim of winning the argument. It was the standard boasting of the sexual underperformer. You think if you repeat it often enough it may become truth. But if you keep it up you’ll probably go blind.
Woo hoo. Mottsa’s done the nana. Another datum point for the sour angry denialist theory regression.
Observors know by now that the cognitive dissonance barrier is close when Mottsa turns on the filth.
But as a classic Mottsian ream out – I give you 6.0 out of 10. Probably not as funny as normal. And obviously you’ve done the nana and thrown in the personal attack. So you’d know that after Phil and I had the accident with the blender that’s a sensitive point – so you got pain twinge there, and so another point for that. So 7 /10. And “wallowed in it like a mongrel dog” – not bad – close to Keatingesque “dogs returning to their vomit” style. So overall 7.5 out of 10.
Good attempt.
Jim above – ‘’it’s simply bad stewardship”. You are not looking for facts either mate.
It an absurdity for some trumped up armchair critics to lean on Caterpillar for environment innovations.
“For more than 80 years, Caterpillar Inc. has been making progress possible and driving positive and sustainable change on every continent…Caterpillar has sold more than 450,000 on-highway engines with ACERT Technology to more than 46,000 customers since the technology was introduced in 2003…On November 20, 2006, Caterpillar Inc. received certification from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the company’s first engine equipped with ACERT Technology for 2007. This technology positions Caterpillar to meet future EPA emissions regulations and provides a long-term emissions solution for the global on-highway engine market” note my arrangement-
http://www.dieselforum.org/newsarticle/article/650/1/
Without much academic enterprise I can say these people have been at the forefront of engine development for use in confined space, underground mining operations for starters where emissions really count.
If its about good practice then this whole thread runs on bull from the top when it picks up on comments from a body with no international standards to their credit like the engineering, hydraulics and hand tool specs used for machines on shore and off shore
All lost on them Gavin.
Yep Gavin – hard to find anything rational or factual to justify that Caterpillar decision.
Anyway as Luke says – it’s lost on me!
Oh for the wisdom of Luke and Gav……
One day maybe!
The CEO of Caterpillar will be asked at some future AGM: “Mr Owens, can you please explain the decline in dividend payments and the decline in the the value of our shares”. The CEO can quite truthfully answer: “Well, it’s because of Global Warming”.
It looks like anything can now be blamed on Global Warming…
http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,21919884-5006003,00.html
So there’s no need to do cost benefit analys – we can just rely on the GCM’s for any modeling. And wo cares about any evidence to the contrary – must be Exxon shill stuff.
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Ollson/recent_greening_of_Sahel.pdf
cheers
Arnost
June 13, 2007
ECONOMIC / FINANCIAL
Q: Is Caterpillar on track to reach its goal of more than $50B in sales and revenues by 2010?
A: Yes, we raised our 2007 outlook of sales and revenues to a range of $42.0 to $44.0 billion, up from $41.5 billion in 2006. And, we are well positioned for the future because of our broad product line, a growing range of diversified service businesses, a well-defined strategy that we are executing and the broadest global reach of any company in our industry.
Q: Mining and oil and gas have been very strong industries for the past few years. Can you comment on your expectations going forward from here?
A: Commodity prices have held up better than expected. We believe prices for most commodities are well above levels favorable for new investment, and our first quarter results indicated strong demand for our products that support these industries. We continue to have a positive outlook for these industries worldwide.
Q: How much does Caterpillar spend on research & development?
A: Caterpillar invested $1.35B in R&D in 2006—that’s more than $5 million each working day.
COSTS / PROFIT / ACQUISITIONS / CASH FLOW
Q: We hear about continuing cost pressure on material costs from other manufacturing companies. What are your expectations for 2007 material costs?
A: We are experiencing continued cost pressure from higher commodity prices such as copper, steel and nickel. In addition, capacity constraints related to large tires and bearings are contributing to cost pressure. Overall, our material costs are expected to increase about 1% this year.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT:
Q: Why is Caterpillar so focused on sustainable development?
A: Because protecting and preserving the environment is the right thing to do. The sustainability of our world and the sustainability of our business are inseparable. We work to provide solutions that make our customers’ businesses more viable. Providing sustainable solutions is a growing business.
We invested more than $2B over the last 10 years developing cleaner products, including ACERT Technology.
We grew our remanufacturing business 67 percent between 2001 and 2006. We are a leader in this $100B global industry that conserves nonrenewable resources and provides cost-effective repair options for customers.
We continue to work with governments to promote the use of alternative fuels such as landfill gas, coal seam methane and digester gas for distributed power generation. Increasing our ability to convert these gases into clean energy not only reduces greenhouse gas emissions, but also represents a significant opportunity for growth.
Q: Why did Caterpillar join the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP)?
A: Caterpillar’s affiliation with USCAP is based on three concerns: First, we’ve established a credible reputation as a global company concerned about the environment and while we won’t debate the science, we believe it is incumbent on industry to reduce emissions. Second – knowing this debate is going to get underway in earnest – we’re here to protect the interests of our customers, particularly coal producers and users. We can be more effective protecting those interests by supporting a single national mandate than trying to comply with potentially 50 state proposals. And third, we want to play a role in the development and supply of some of the technology that will allow the U.S. – and the world – to accomplish its goal of reducing emissions.
While USCAP is focused on the United States, it recognizes that the effects of climate change are global and encourages the U.S. government to increase its engagement in developing post 2012 international arrangements on climate change. On a global level, Caterpillar is actively engaged in supporting policies that reduce GHG emissions and promote market-based approaches to climate change initiatives. Caterpillar is in favor of a harmonized global system of GHG emissions-reduction initiatives that avoids local or regional development of separate paths.
Q: What is the state of ACERT Technology in Cat engines?
A: Customers have accepted ACERT Technology in record numbers. Caterpillar has sold over 550,000 ACERT engines (on-highway and off-road) since their introduction, reaffirming our position as an industry leader. The basic ACERT Technology systems approach is adaptable to varied industries and applications across the globe. Whether in earthmoving machinery, marine engines, electric power generation equipment, or vehicle engines, ACERT Technology is being implemented and is earning customer reputation as a strong, clean performer.
Jim when you said “Unless he can justify the action on the grounds of a tangible marketing benefit , dump your caterpillar shares” did you have any knowledge of Cat opps. here or anywhere else? For your benefit I briefly tried to demonstrate how Caterpillar are still leading the way in transport power plant engineering and how I have faith in global organizations doing the right thing generally.
Reading between the lines becomes second nature. A long time ago I started out in the process of independent contracts with the likes of Dow etc in our local chemical manufacturing. A handful of blokes pioneered the way of survival in hazardous environments without close supervision. In the 70’s we graduated to the installation of emission controls to let our major industrial city to breath freely again. This US type complex responded to the will of the people. DDT etc became history and there is plenty of that on the web under the Melb uni study I refer to as “Technology In Australia”.
Mark my words, big companies will drag others to the international table of responsibility and one of the old rules was those individuals who fouled in the oil & gas industry by coping backhanders under the table were outed by all and sundry. Some on the wrong side of the fence won’t find a job Jim.
All you unbelieving AGW blog botherers; Dow says climate change is real. On USCAP –
“These principles are completely in line with what Dow has advocated for globally and we will continue to do so”, explained Liveris. “As a world leader in chemistry, we have much at stake, as well as a lot of solutions to offer. In 25 years, the world’s population will increase by roughly 25 percent and is expected to consume goods and services at a rate four times higher than we do now. This rate of consumption, more than the population numbers themselves, will have the most significant correlation to the rate at which we consume fossil fuels and produce greenhouse gases. The challenge will be how to provide humanity with a sustainable energy supply while addressing climate change. Dow is uniquely positioned to provide innovations that enable diverse solutions to these challenges. We have been part of the solution for decades and through our 2015 and 2025 goals on climate change and energy efficiency we hold ourselves accountable to continue on this path.”
http://www.csrwire.com/News/8177.html
Given that Dow is about no 40 in the Fortune500 list and about the next most dependent manufacturer on oil after the petrol group, what’s going on here hey
“And wo cares about any evidence to the contrary – must be Exxon shill stuff.” – well no actually.
We’ve had Kilimanjaro listed as an exception – I actually raised it. The largest warming on the planet is the Antarctic mid-troposphere – not claimed as AGW. Thermohaline slowing – hosed down day one as data blip. Issues of decadal variability brought up WRT ice sheets. Hurricanes and paleo El Nino paper.
This is the real science not your Al Gore stuff. So serious science is getting through OK. Bolsh is still getting the derision it deserves.
Sahelian issues have always been regarded as complex. Latest theory was some greenhouse + some natural variation + land management. So what’s new. Nevertheless the population movements are interesting.
Be also interesting to know what calibration and adjustment was done to the NDVI greenness index for bidirectional reflectance and sensor drift. You can get unit movements in the index without proper adjustments. Artefact greening.
Anyway the hostile reaction here to major US industrial complex moving on AGW is instructive. Nota bene.
Half of us are encouraged. And half are horrified. OK argue about half then !
Caterpillar and others have been refining their product for a lot longer than 10 years; truckies are still getting much the same rates as they were decades ago when fuel was much cheaper. A fiercely competitve market has driven across the board cost cutting efficiencies far better than any govt intervention could with freight unit costs plummeting. Operating on reducing margins and without the capital resources to implement innovation smaller companies are swallowed up by bigger corporations.
Unfolding the headlines today; North faces climate? – yes you sarcastic bb’s Disaster!
Now I guessed it was about the northern hemisphere but it isn’t is it? with pics of Kakadu, Arnhem Land and the Barrier Reef and –
Luke note; a “half” map of our continent hey.
See our CT exclusive later today posted in the usual place where “Experts say global warming could devastate the Top End”
On reading whoz who re WWF csiro etc clearly my CV is nothing like theirs; What about yours, early Blog Botherers before firing the next salvo. That’s more about perspective.
Too easy as to why no BC ratio. It costs nothing now to join USCAP and the expected positive value of the benefits compared to the counterfactual of not joining results in infinite B/C ratio. Caterpillar had no choice. The markets are now full on on ESG ( Environmental Social Governance) and even Australian Companies now report emissions at half the rate of other more enlightened developed economies.
I like that phrase: “Environmental Social Governance (ESG).”
I am considering the use of that to replace the phrase, “campaign against global climate change.”
ESG is so much more honest.
Schiller,
don’t you know it’s dishonest to make up what people think?
The phrase is part of the “Socially Responsible Investment” mantra.
Some people will do absolutely anything to get your money.
SJT,
People who grew up under Communism know exactly what it looks like, and recognize it easily when AGW adherents come knocking.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9deb730a-19ca-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html
Financial Times (UK)
Freedom, not climate, is at risk
By Vaclav Klaus
Published: June 13 2007
“As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”
“The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature.”
There you have it: Environmental Social Governance. ESG.
World govt nutters. OMG !
Luke,
That insightful rebuttal is so thorough that, well.. Actually, since it’s neither insightful, nor a rebuttal, it amounts to agreement.
You guys are probably too young to remember but it’s time you checked up on the origins of the “league” in all its glory.
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Zundel1/nigel1.htm
It’s now too late to defeat communism
http://www.awm.gov.au/firstopac/bin/cgi-jsp.exe/searchresults.jsp?userId=&catTable=&author=Butler%2C+Eric+D.+(Eric+Dudley)%2C+1916-&author_match=FULL
Read on: he he
Sixty decades on from the formation of the “Australian League of Rights” I reckon Australia was full of scallywags meddling in politics throughout but reading Barnett on Butler in media watch courtesy of the Sydney Institute keeps us rich in dry humor if nothing else.
Anti world government indeed………started here but only a few were bothered.