Two calls-to-action on cutting greenhouse gas emissions were released Nov. 30, shortly before world leaders met in Bali to begin outlining a global agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. First, business leaders from 150 global firms issued a communiqué calling for "a comprehensive, legally binding United Nations framework to tackle climate change." Second, a report sponsored by a coalition of U.S businesses and nongovernmental organizations said the U.S. could reduce its output of greenhouse gas emissions substantially using existing technologies and low-cost emerging alternatives, but to do so "will require strong, coordinated, economy-wide action that begins in the near future."

The Bali Communiqué was issued by The Prince of Wales's UK and EU Corporate Leaders Groups on Climate Change. It calls for:

• "a comprehensive, legally binding United Nations framework to tackle climate change"
• "emission reduction targets to be guided primarily by science"
• "those countries that have already industrialised to make the greatest effort"
• "world leaders to seize the window of opportunity and agree [to] a work plan of negotiations to ensure an agreement can come into force post 2012 (when the existing Kyoto Protocol expires)"

This group of corporate leaders includes such giants as General Electric, Shell Oil, British Airways and DuPont. They note that the scientific evidence regarding climate change is "now overwhelming" and that a mandatory framework for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions "will provide business with the certainty it needs to scale up global investment in low-carbon technologies," according to a Washington Post story.

BBC News reports that the business leaders have moved away from the Bush administration's position and expect this administration to oppose a mandatory framework. James Connaughton, the chair of the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality "confirmed to the BBC's Environment Analyst that the White House will not agree to binding international emissions cuts during the UN's climate negotiations."

In the U.S., GHG emissions are projected to rise 35 percent between 2005 and 2030, according to a new report, Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost? The report was sponsored by Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Pacific Gas & Electric, Shell, Honeywell and others and was conducted by McKinsey & Company, a consulting firm, which analyzed more than 250 opportunities to reduce or prevent GHGs.

Without any specific policy changes or reduced demand from consumers, the authors concluded that "[r]elying on tested approaches and high-potential emerging technologies, the U.S. could reduce annual GHG emissions by as much as 3.0 gigatons in the mid-range case to 4.5 gigatons in the high-range case by 2030" or in the range of 7-28 percent at a marginal cost of less than $50 per ton. Most of this reduction could be achieved by common sense practices focusing on energy efficiency both in households and businesses.

In NRDC's press release announcing the report, its president, Frances Beineke, said, "Global warming is becoming a core driver for business and the American economy. Smart companies know that action is coming, and they are moving to get ahead of the game … Strategies to cut emissions and reduce energy demand create both a challenge and an opportunity. With the right measures now, we can unlock tremendous savings throughout the economy."

The press release noted several factors make 2007 a turning point in attitudes toward global warming. For example, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of major businesses, issued a call for a federal limit on GHGs in conjunction with a market trading system. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must start addressing climate change. Many states and Congress are progressing with programs and/or legislation to reduce GHG emissions.

The common themes among the business groups calling for action on GHG reductions include the need for mandatory frameworks that provide certainty for investors and businesses, the removal of disincentives that affect energy efficiency (such as shifting the cost of electricity to owners of apartment buildings from tenants so there would be incentives to buy energy efficient appliances), and federal support for research and development. Clearly, there is an important role for governments to achieve what the public, the business community and these reports support: domestic and international actions to reduce GHG emissions while there is still an opportunity to prevent the worst damage from a changing climate.

These actions suggest that business is not monolithic when it comes to regulatory matters. Many view environmental, consumer and health problems with equal concern as the public — and recognize that addressing the problems is good for business. This is where federal leadership is needed. The federal government needs to plot a steady long-range regulatory course for dealing with GHG emissions and other societal problems. Such leadership is sorely needed today.