Below are a selection of features I have written on a freelance basis. The copyright for these pieces is owned by the Lloyd’s 360 Risk project, where they can be viewed in their entirety.

Red, white and green?

Tuesday November 4th 2008 will mark the 56th quadrennial US presidential election. As the Democratic Party candidate Barrack Obama – an Illinois-based junior US senator – and Republican Party nominee John McCain – a senator from Arizona – prepare to go head to head, their green credentials are increasingly coming under the spotlight. While the US’ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has already established an agenda it hopes will help address climate change, many feel its three-step plan of “slowing the growth of emissions”, “strengthening science, technology and institutions” and “enhancing international cooperation” does not go far enough to reduce emissions. With the EPA’s current strategy dating back to 2002, when it released its ten-year plan to reduce emissions by 18 per cent by 2012, the environmental stance of Obama and McCain is of paramount importance to green campaigners and businesses alike.

In 2005 global research resource on international affairs and policy World Public Opinion reported that the “overwhelming majority” of Americans would support the US agreeing to limit its green house gasses at least as much other developed economies (94 per cent) and nearly half (47 per cent) thought their nation should be doing more than most other countries in order to address its carbon emissions.

Understanding the importance of this issue to both the electorate and businesses, Obama has pledged to address the risk climate change poses to trade and the global reputation of the US by investing $150 billion (£75 billion) over the next decade to “catalyse private efforts to build a clean energy future”. He explains that this will help create five million new jobs. Similar initiatives championed by the Democratic nominee include ensuring ten per cent of the US’ electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012 and an economy-wide cap-and-trade programme to reduce emissions by 80 per cent over the next 40 years.

Much like his Republican predecessor, John McCain’s principles for climate policy are motivated by preserving the current economic climate. On his website he issues a precautionary warning that the information operated on should be “scientifically sound”, implying that this has not always been the case. McCain, like Obama, backs a cap-and-trade policy and notes that climate policy must “spur the development and deployment of advanced technology”. In other words, in addressing the risks that climate change poses to the economy, through the increase of natural disasters and unpredictable weather patterns, the economy must not be jeopardised. It was a similar concern that prevented the current US president George Bush from signing the Kyoto treaty on climate change. Mr Bush told a Danish TV station in June 2005: “We’re hooked on oil from the Middle East, which is a national security problem and an economic security problem … Kyoto would have wrecked our economy. I couldn’t in good faith have signed Kyoto.”

Meg Boyle, a US energy policy analyst for global campaigning organisation Greenpeace, disagrees with the US president. “To safeguard the economy, you must safeguard the climate,” she says. Furthermore, Ms Boyle notes that 1,000s of firms have signed Greenpeace’s Businesses for a Safe Climate petition, which calls on Congress to create five million green jobs to conserve 20 per cent of the US’ energy by 2015, freeze climate pollution levels and end the development of new coal plants, which emit global warming products. It is worth noting that Greenpeace’s imploration to create five million new jobs echoes one of Obama’s key objectives.

Fellow US-based Greenpeace environmental campaigner David Kessler asserts that most policy makers taking the problem of climate change seriously will see economic opportunity in cutting carbon emissions. He explains: “Obama seems to be on the right track with his stated commitment to invest in renewable technologies and his stated goal to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.” Mr Kessler says that economists and businesses should not see sustaining the economy and climate change as two separate issues as they are “inexorably connected”. He added: “Look no farther than $4 a gallon gas which is the US is unheard of. As fossil fuel supplies dwindle, costs will only rise, underscoring the need to switch from a carbon dependent economy to a clean and green economy.”

If the US continues to lag behind other developed nations in this area, then international trade may falter. Gareth Elliott of the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) explains that while the UK government is proactive in addressing climate change businesses are facing problems trading with other countries, which have dissimilar or a lack of policies. Mr Elliott said: “I think we have to say our government has taken a good stance on climate change. We have the climate change bill – we’re the first country to do that and we expect it to get Royal assent by the end of the year.

“However, it is becoming quite confusing how businesses can or can’t trade with other countries.”

The BCC’s policy advisor for environment added: “So for instance, if you are trading with India there are cheap labour costs but then there are environmental regulations put onto British companies, which makes it less competitive. We are very aware that the British government is wary of that. We can’t go storming ahead of other nations. We need to understand the needs of businesses.”

He concluded that international trade needs definitive action from the governments of leading economies to ensure that their operations are safeguarded in an ethical and sustainable way.

Copyright Lloyds 360 Risk Project