Eight years ago, on this day, September 16, 2015, a survey shows companies and trade associations are saying one thing and doing another … (shocked, shocked to find …)
BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and the Business Council of Australia are among the world’s largest companies and industry groups holding back action on climate change, according to a new survey.
The research, based on methodology developed by the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists and applied by UK-based non-profit group InfluenceMap, found 45 per cent of the 100 biggest industrial companies were “climate hypocrites” that obstruct action on global warming.
Some 95 per cent of the delaying firms were also members of trade associations that demonstrated “the same obstructionist behaviour”.
BHP Billiton was rated a “D”,
Hannam, P. (2015) Rio Tinto, Business Council of Australia among ‘climate hypocrites’, survey says. Sydney Morning Herald, September 16.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly xxxppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm, but check here for daily measures.
The context was that the national and international climate wars were ongoing. The Paris meeting was coming up, and the Union of Concerned Scientists was trying to weaken the status of corporates and especially business associations lobbying against climate action. One way of doing this was by showing the functions of the business associations were not only to present a united front but also for these business associations to do things with dirty hands that individual companies would find too risky.
What I think we can learn from this is a better understanding of the relationship between business associations and their individual members, and how there is an interplay of blame-shifting and collective spreading of risk that trade associations can do. Sometimes pressure groups go too far and become more trouble than they’re worth.
What happened next
Last time I looked, BHP was still a member of these outfits. It finds them useful and not being a member would be tricky. I guess see also Alex Carey “Taking the Risk out of Democracy.”
What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs..