In Congress and statehouses across the country, legislators are debating caps on carbon dioxide emissions from industry and motor vehicles. But politicians are ignoring another potentially huge source of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions: consumers.
Consumers could change corporate behavior by favoring producers who follow environmentally responsible practices. And they could influence the supply chain by demanding that retailers buy from such suppliers, not just in the United States but all over the world. Look at how American consumers led the tuna industry and food retailers to shift to dolphin-safe tuna.
Yet skepticism abounds in academic and policymaking circles. Doubters say that though consumers might talk a good game about wielding “green power” to combat global warming, when it comes to actual purchases, buyers opt for stores with the highest quality and best prices.
The skeptics may be right. But we cannot know for sure, in part because consumers do not have an easy way of identifying which corporations are greener than others.
Until I did some research the other day, for example, I had no idea that some home supply stores have committed to stock wood grown in sustainable forests. And I actually teach environmental policy and law.
Our laws do not require comprehensive and comprehensible environmental disclosure. Most notably, nothing requires a corporation to disclose information about the greenhouse gas emissions it produces. Federal law does require corporations to disclose information about toxic releases in the United States, and that information is made available to the public. But because greenhouse gases are not classified as toxins, the law does not apply.
Some bills under consideration in Congress would require certain producers to report their greenhouse gas emissions within the United States. But because global warming is a result of global emissions, consumers need to know what major corporations are doing abroad as well.
The key issue is environmental efficiency. Consumers need to know how much a corporation adds to global emissions in relation to the dollar value of what corporations produce — the goods and services we all consume.
Some corporations voluntarily provide this information. British Petroleum, for example, issues reports on its global greenhouse gas emissions and its progress in reducing them. But gasoline consumers have no way of comparing BP with its rivals.
Through shareholder resolutions, activist stockholders have tried to force management at a number of major companies to report on emissions. But like most shareholder initiatives that management opposes, these resolutions have been defeated. Even investment funds that market themselves as socially responsible have put minimal pressure on corporations to expand the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.
Hence my proposal: Congress should require all major corporations doing business in the United States to report global greenhouse gas emissions.
In developing the regulations, the federal Environmental Protection Agency could build on reporting standards being developed by non-profit groups such as the World Resources Institute. When corporations report to the EPA, non-profit groups could review and package the emissions data to help consumers make informed decisions.
One major group, Environmental Defense, did this with the toxic emissions data the federal government began collecting in the 1990s. Major corporations such as General Electric substantially cut their toxic emissions after they were ranked as the worst toxic polluters on the federal government’s Toxic Release Inventory.
We might — and I suggest we would — see much of the same response if and when corporations are ranked on a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. Reducing global greenhouse emissions is too important. We must try to harness our power as consumers.
———-
David Dana is a professor of law and associate dean for faculty research at Northwestern University School of Law.
