Labels & Packaging
Copenhagen Climate Change and the Printer
Is this a threat or an opportunity?
Paul Machin reports on the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference for GDW.
The Copenhagen Climate Change conference was an historic event at which all nations on earth came together (in excess of 110 heads of national governments attended) to discuss one topic.
Prior to the conference there was much hype encouraged by the political leaders of the need to meet the challenge facing the world? All the parties spoke of the need for greater urgency in our efforts to confront climate change. That, however, appeared to be the only point upon which there was any real consensus. The conference finished with more questions unanswered than ever before. The need for a legally binding agreement to counteract climate change was deferred for later, possibly at the Mexico conference later this year in 2010.
Why did the Copenhagen Climate Change conference not achieve its objective? The less developed nations were unwilling to forgo growth. Many believed that changing from processes such as coal fired energy generation would involve significant capital expenditure that was not available. They considered that utilising technologies to reduce greenhouse gases would increase costs and thereby lose markets. When you have very little it is not surprising that there is considerable reluctance to relinquish that which you have got.
Perhaps due to the recession there was little support among the leading developed nations to provide significant financial support to the poorer nations. The message from Copenhagen was that it is the poorer nations who are most vulnerable and that they are the ones who bear the greatest burden from the consequences of the actions of the richer industrialised nations. These poorer nations considered that the richer nations should bear a moral responsibility for their historic emissions. The richer nations do not have the right to tell the developing world "Do as I say, not as I did". They are the ones who must make the greatest reductions in green house gas emissions and they need to collectively meet the cost of addressing climate change damage.
That the combination of political will, economic direction and public pressure was not sufficient to overcome the concerns that many countries have over the potential loss of their sovereignty should they be subject to international law in the form of a legally binding climate change treaty. Many will co-operate, but not under the threat of legal sanction. There was no agreed verification process on carbon emissions to check compliance. The verification process was strongly opposed by China. No new target was set; it remains to reduce greenhouse gases by 20% by 2020.
What were positive points from the conference? The conference redefined the debate between countries in terms of awareness of climate science and support for action. There is no longer any question that climate change is central to the political thinking of every country on the planet. This applies to the smallest nations concerned that their country will disappear beneath the ocean or the large industrial nations being aware of the adverse impact their lifestyle is having on the environment.
Public awareness has also massively increased. The vast campaigns run around the world in the run-up to Copenhagen by governments, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), business and the media coverage of the issue and the summit itself have made addressing climate change widely understood. There were individuals with strong beliefs for or against climate change discussing the topic as never before.
The other very important change is that green growth is now the prevailing economic model of our time. The idea that addressing climate change is bad for business was buried at Copenhagen. Countries from both developed and developing worlds have announced low-carbon economic plans and are moving forward.
While there was much speculation on the positive and negative ramifications on the commitment of the political leaders attending the conference, there was no such reluctance from the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. In a speech that was not widely reported he said: "History tells us that movements begin with people, not governments, and when they become powerful enough, governments respond," He quoted as his examples the American civil rights movement that changed that country’s approach to their colour problem, the women’s suffrage movement in the UK and the American Independence that was started by people power. Many visitors to Copenhagen and world-wide television viewers witnessed the vast numbers of climate change protesters from many nations around the world raising the temperature of the debate.
What has not changed? The Kyoto protocol is still in place and will be so for a few more years to come. Kyoto is legally binding, it is accepted, the standards and architecture are recognised and it is economically viable. Unfortunately not every nation signed it. Significantly the USA did not sign the Kyoto protocol and, without the participation of the USA, Kyoto will have very little impact on the world-wide problem.
The current accepted target is a reduction of 20% of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020. However, the world’s leaders have declared the aim of restricting global temperature increase to +2 degrees above pre industrial levels.
Within the EU there are controls on the environment issues such as the Integrated Prevention and Pollution Control, the Solvent Emissions, the Hazardous Waste, the Waste and Waste Packaging Directives. Many printers are subject to many of these restrictions including the implementation of the EU’s environmental Best Available Techniques (BREF) standards.
Printers will still have to compete in this market and to do so must embrace the changes that the political and economic factors associated with climate change have brought about especially after the Copenhagen conference.
What must printers do to meet the climate change challenge? The very first challenge that must be faced is to change the opinion within the organisation that climate change is a threat to the future of the company. It is an opportunity for growth. Green growth is seen by the politicians as sustainability and therefore it will meet the aspirations of the populace. Thus there is a strong probability that legislative measures will be utilised to secure a favourable response especially if it is not seen as a direct tax on voters. Governments will be looking to increase pressures on commercial enterprises.
Companies will be actively looking at reducing their environmental tax burden such as the climate change levy. One means of reducing this taxation burden is through purchasing products from printers that will reduce this levy. This is achieved by buying products that have a low carbon footprint. To produce low carbon footprint products requires a positive approach by printers towards environmental issues such as waste control, emissions to air and water, energy management and careful selection in the use of chemicals.
Is there help available for printers to meet the challenge? There are a number of trade associations throughout the world that offer assistance on environmental issues. Typically FESPA offers its members free access to their Planet Friendly Guide. Other NGOs such as Envirowise in the United Kingdom provide guidance on good environmental practices. There is a plethora of consultants who will be able to assist; however, it would be wise to check their accreditation prior to appointment.
Are there benefits from being environmentally aware? There are major financial savings to be made that are vital during this period of limited business growth and profitability. A good environmental image is seen as being beneficial to customers, regulatory authorities, employees both present and future as well as neighbours. Employee involvement in improving the company’s environmental image raises the level of job satisfaction as employees see it as a means of protecting the environment for their children and grandchildren.
How can these be achieved? A necessary prerequisite of any attempt to change the company’s approach to the environment is the 100% commitment of the Chief Executive Officer or owner of the company. Without this undertaking the company will fail to achieve the desired result.
This new company ethos will require employee training and that will stimulate their involvement. This involvement is a vital element in generating a reduction in the level of waste, the conservation of energy as well as an understanding the benefits of reducing emissions from the factory. For example simply by reducing the heating by 10 C in winter and increasing the temperature of the air conditioning in by 10 C in the summer can save 5 – 10% of the company’s energy costs. Employees with this knowledge are more likely to promote such a saving as an environmental benefit as well as a financial saving.
There are many other financial savings of this nature that can be obtained by following environmental best practice that will automatically lead to a reduction in the company’s carbon footprint. This will in turn provide a positive selling point especially to the larger international customers who are looking to limit their climate change levy or similar environmental tax.
Tackling climate change in a positive manner can give an opportunity to improve the company’s environmental image as well as their profitability and thus should not be seen as being a threat.
Want to get to know us better? Follow us on Twitter @GDWtweets
We'd love to get to know you and learn more about your business!
Got any news or PR? Email us at email@example.com