Time to provide cover for the climate
For a self-confessed optimist, John Coomber, head of Swiss Re, has a sober vision of the future. Crops will fail; floods will intensify; life-threatening diseases will spread across the world. Already, says the reinsurance group, there has been a detectable increase in the frequency and severity of weather-related events.
For more than a decade, Swiss Re has been telling other companies about the risks of climate change. "I don't feel any inclination to lecture or blame. But I'd like to encourage greater awareness of what is happening," says Mr Coomber.
Swiss Re is one of a small but influential group of companies that are convinced that practical action on tackling greenhouse gas emissions cannot wait for an international agreement. Twenty of these businesses - plus a number of governments, cities and US states - have decided to pool their expertise in a new public/ private partnership, the Climate Group.
This initiative, a charity founded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, is being launched today in London by Tony Blair, prime minister. Its goal is "to build a world-leading coalition of reducers - companies, agencies, cities, states, provinces and countries - whose mitigation efforts demonstrate clear progress in cutting emissions". In practice, it will try to turn the experience of its members in reducing emissions into knowledge and tools that can be more widely used.
Its business members, which include BP, Lafarge and DuPont, believe that tackling climate change is a strategic issue. As climate change becomes more disruptive and constraints on carbon emissions tighten, companies will benefit from having planned ahead. Developing low-carbon technologies and products will give them a first-mover advantage; taking early action will protect their reputation; improving energy efficiency will reduce costs.
Swiss Re, for instance, has created a specialist unit - Greenhouse Gas Risk Solutions - to focus on climate change. It is exploring new business opportunities, such as protecting ski resorts and other businesses against weather-related risks, insuring wind farms and facilitating the fledgling emissions trading market.
It also wants to understand the threat posed by climate risks to its own business. It fears that the growth of new markets in China, India and South Africa, where it has just opened branches, could be undermined by climate-related health risks.
Moreover, a failure to analyse climate risks properly could leave its life and property businesses seriously exposed. It has also identified a climate risk in its directors and officers (D&O) liability policies. Premiums should reflect the risk of litigation against senior managers who have failed to protect their companies against such risk, it says.
Its decision to question clients wanting D&O cover about their climate policies has met with mixed success, says Mr Coomber. Not everyone appreciates the extra form-filling or believes that climate change deserves to be high on companies' agenda. Although four out of five of the world's 500 largest companies believe they will be affected by the impact of climate change and related policies, only half have plans to deal with this, according to a recent survey.
This inaction on the part of so many big companies may invite scepticism about the Climate Group's ambition to start a "global groundswell of action". There is a longstanding gulf in attitudes between the bulk of the business community and the relatively small group of companies taking an active stance on climate change. A report last week by the World Economic Forum lauded the efforts of forward-looking multinationals but warned that "current voluntary actions are inadequate to stem the tide".
But Steve Howard, executive director of the Climate Group, is adamant that the message is beginning to reach a wider audience. Until recently, people did not expect climate change to have a significant impact until about 2050, well beyond any business's plans, he said. "Now people realise it has immediate impacts."
As the effects of climate change become more serious, governments will take more stringent action, he believes. The European emissions trading scheme, which will affect large European manufacturers from next January, is already starting to bite. In California, new regulations restricting greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles will have big implications for US carmakers.
The message promoted by the Climate Group is that taking action on climate is easy. Lord Browne, chairman of BP, says that people respond to an objective. "The enthusiasm we found within our organisation has been magical."
Moreover, the costs of taking action are nowhere near as great as some feared, he says. BP has cut its emissions by 10 per cent below its 1990 level at no cost at all. DuPont held energy use flat while increasing production by 35 per cent and saving the company $2bn between 1990 and 2000. But exhortations to improve energy efficiency are often greeted with a mixture of boredom and scepticism. "Energy efficiency is not sexy," admits Mr Howard. Often it takes pressure from regulators to force companies to make even cost- effective savings. For example, regulators in the state of Victoria in Australia require all large emitters to have a compulsory energy audit and undertake any recommendations that have a three-year payback or less.
Mr Howard compares the benefits of improving energy efficiency to "picking up $50 bills". Failure to invest in energy efficiency is caused by inflexible budgeting procedures or a lack of management time.
But in some cases, returns are too small or distant to justify an investment on conventional grounds. For example, Swiss Re's installation of windows that can be opened in its striking new London headquarters will take more than a decade of reduced ventilation bills to justify their extra cost.
But Swiss Re has been determined to reduce its own use of energy as part of its general commitment to tackling climate change. It has promised to go "carbon neutral" over the next 10 years, partly by offsetting its emissions with contributions to World Bank carbon sequestration projects.
For energy-intensive companies, reducing energy consumption is often far harder. Much of the controversy aroused by the Kyoto protocol has been based on a perception that cutting emissions can damage the competitiveness of heavy industry. Industry's concerns have recently led to battles between environment and industry departments in European governments over the stringency of national allocation plans for the European Union's emissions trading scheme.
A recognition that tackling climate change involves costs as well as benefits means that "progressive" companies may have commercial reasons to want to see others follow in their footsteps. Indeed, some of the Climate Group's members accept they want to broaden their own efforts into sector initiatives. "Most people want to be one step ahead of the competition, not two steps," says Mr Howard.
But the Climate Group is convinced that the costs of action are greatly outweighed by the potential benefits. The proliferation of unilateral efforts to reduce emissions may "create an irresistible momentum for change", it says.
The stakes are high, says Mr Coomber: "10 years into the future, we may look back on 2004 as either a period of transition or a missed opportunity. The more attention we can bring to the subject, the more likely it will move in the right direction."
为气候"保险" 的新商机
瑞士再保险公司负责人约翰o库姆博(John Coomber)坦言自己是个乐观派，但他对未来的展望却颇为悲观。庄稼歉收，洪水肆虐，致命的疾病泛滥全球。这家再保险公司表示，即便是眼下，和天气相关的问题无论是发生频率还是严重程度都显著有所增加。
十多年来，瑞士再保险公司不断向其它企业警告气候变化的风险。"我并不想说教，也不想批评。但是我想鼓励大家提高意识，关注正在发生的情况，"库姆博先生说。
像瑞士再保险公司这样的一些企业形成了一个规模不大，但是影响不小的群体。该群体内的企业认为，产生温室效应的废气排放不能等国际社会达成协议才解决，必须立即采取行动。该群体内的二十多家企业，再加上一些国家、城市和美国的州，决定汇聚各自所长，形成一种新型的公私合作方式，名字叫"气候集团"。
英国首相托尼o布莱尔（Tony Blair）昨天在伦敦宣布，由洛克菲勒兄弟基金会（Rockefeller Brothers Fund）成立的慈善组织正式启动。其目的是"汇聚企业、机构、城市、州、省、国家等限制气体排放组织的力量，建立一个领导全球的联合组织，通过调节手段，实现废气排放量的显著下降。"事实上，该组织将努力把成员减少气体排放的经验发扬光大，形成可供推广的知识和工具。
该组织的企业成员包括英国石油（BP）、Lafarge、杜邦（DuPont）等。它们相信，解决气候变化是项战略性问题。气候造成的问题越多，二氧化碳排放限制越严，早作规划的企业就越能得益。它们可以开发低二氧化碳技术和产品，产生领先优势。它们提早行动，声誉会得到保护。它们还可以提高能源效率，进而降低成本。
比如，瑞士再保险公司就特地成立了专业小组"温室效应气体风险解决方案小组"，专门应对气候变化问题。该小组正在探索新的商机，比如为滑雪度假场之类企业提供天气类保险，推出针对风力农场的新险种，另外还在推动新兴的油气交易市场。
瑞士再保险公司还希望了解气候风险对本企业可能造成的威胁。它担心，在中国、印度、南非等新兴市场，气候健康类风险不解决，其发展将会受到拖累。因此，该公司在上述市场都新开设了分支机构。
另外，如果不能合理分析气候的风险，该公司的人寿保险和财产保险都有可能严重受损。该公司还在其董事和主管责任保险中例出了气候风险因素。该保险公司表示，保险费应反映高层经理因气候风险损失而遭到起诉的情况。
库姆博先生表示，公司就董事和主管保险（D & O cover）中是否包含气候条款问题征询客户，答案好坏不一。很多人不愿意多填一份表格，也不觉得气候变化问题是他们公司的工作重点。根据最近开展的一项调查，财富500强企业中有五分之四相信，气候变化和相应政策会对它们产生影响，但是这些企业中，只有一半制定了应对计划。
这么多大企业选择无为，不禁让人怀疑气候集团"推动全球性行动"的雄心壮志能否落实。在气候变化问题上姿态积极的企业比较少，而企业界的大部分成员则无动于衷，二者的态度判若天壤，而且长期如此。世界经济论坛（World Economic Forum）上周发布的一份报告表彰了目光长远的跨国公司，但也警告，"目前自愿行动还很有限，不足以左右潮流。"
但是气候集团执行干事史蒂夫o霍华德（Steve Howard）坚信，相关信息已经开始传达到了更多人的耳中。直到最近以来，人们还觉得气候变化的影响是2050年以后的事，和企业的规划无关。他说，"现在，人们意识到气候问题的影响就在眼前。"
他相信，随着气候变化的影响程度加深，政府会采取更严格的限制行动。欧洲油气交易方案将于明年一月生效，届时会影响到大量欧洲大生产商，其影响现在就已经开始了。在加州，限制车辆废气排放的新法规将会严重影响美国汽车生产商。
气候集团倡导的说法是，气候行动其实很容易落实。英国石油公司董事长布朗勋爵（Lord Browne）说，有目标，人们才会有行动。"我所在组织里，大家对气候行动的热情高涨，着了魔一样。"
他还说，采取行动的成本远低于人们所担忧的水平。英国石油将其废气排放从1990年的水平降低了10%，但是根本没有另外投入成本。1990年到2000年之间，杜邦的能源消耗维持不变，而产量却提高了35%，公司为此节约了20亿美元。但面对提高能源使用效率的劝告，有人不屑一顾，有人表示怀疑。"能源效率这东西可不时髦，"霍华德先生承认。在很多情况下，只有在立法者施加压力，同时存在成本效率高的方法，企业才会提高能源效率。例如，澳大利亚的维多利亚州立法机构要求气体排放大户接受强制性能源审计，并根据其建议开展为期三年以下的整改。
霍华德先生将提高能源效率的益处比作"路上捡到50美元钞票。"预算程序呆板，管理层缺乏时间，都有可能让企业无法投资提高能源效率。
但有些情况下，提高能源效率见效低，或者见效慢，按照传统的逻辑，这都会妨碍企业作出相应投资。比如，瑞士再保险公司如果为设在伦敦的总部新大楼安装可开启的窗户，会产生额外的高成本，虽然能够降低空气流通费用，但要十年以上才能与投入相抵。
但为了遵守解决气候变化问题的承诺，瑞士再保险公司决定减少自己的能源消耗。公司希望在未来10年内实现"二氧化碳均衡化"（carbon neutral）。方法之一，是向世界银行的二氧化碳限制项目提供捐助，以抵消自己的排放量。
对能源密集型企业而言，降低能耗的难度往往要大得多。《京都议定书》(Kyoto protocol)中就有一项认识，认为减少废气排放量会削弱重工业的竞争力。该议定书所引发的争议，在很大程度上可以归结为这一认识。工业界的担忧最近就引发了欧洲国家环境和工业部门的斗争。斗争的焦点是欧盟油气交易方案中的各国配额。
认识到应对气候变化有投入也有产出，则意味着"激进"的企业也会因商业原因驱动，希望他人效仿自己。确实，气候集团的成员承认，他们希望将自己的努力推广到同类组织。霍华德先生说，"大部分人只求比竞争对手快一步，而不是两步。"
但是气候集团相信，如果采取行动，收益定会大大多于投入。减少废气排放的单边行动在推广过程中，或许会"产生无法逆转的变革潮流，"该集团表示。
库姆博先生说，现在正是成败攸关的时候。"再过十年，等我们回头看2004的时候，我们要么会觉得实现了成功转型，要么会觉得错失了良机。我们让越多的人关注这个问题，就越有可能走上正确的轨道。"
