The big news last Thursday on the “green” front was Walmart’s announcement of its Sustainable Product Index.  Just three days later, India’s Environmental Minister, Jairam Ramesh, underscored the large hurdles that exist in establishing global standards and agreements on climate change and sustainability.  “There is simply no case for the pressure that we [India], who have among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions,” Ramesh told U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her delegation on Sunday.  “And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.”

Those two short sentences are very telling, in my opinion.

Ramesh’s quote is particularly interesting because he references a metric: CO2 emissions per capita.  It’s no accident that he chose this measuring stick to quantify India’s carbon footprint.  With more than 1 billion people, this metric obviously paints a more favorable picture of India’s contribution than citing the country’s absolute growth in CO2 emissions, which is growing very quickly.  This metric choice is a perfect example of the challenge I highlighted in my posting last week: getting different companies, industries, and governments to agree on “the right metrics” with regards to sustainability will be a very long and painful process, especially because politics is involved. (Regarding the merits of using a per capita emissions metric, see William Antholis’ opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal).

The other interesting aspect of Ramesh’s comments is how he linked climate change with trade protectionism.  As I’ve highlighted in previous postings, some politicians and members of the Obama administration, including Energy Secretary Steven Chu, are floating the idea of instituting a “carbon tariff” on countries like China and India that do not mandate greenhouse gas emission reductions (see “The Road to Cap-and-Trade” and “Cap-and-Trade Bill Passes the House“).   The prospect of a carbon tariff compounds the trade concerns already sparked by “Buy American” and the current U.S. dispute with Mexico over NAFTA.

The bottom line: The more I think about it, the more I believe that the best way for companies to make progress on sustainability is for politics and governments to stay out of it.  Yes, I know this is unrealistic, and that governments need to play a role.  But it seems to me that politicians are more adept at throwing sand into the gears than greasing them.  Just look at the “progress” made at the G-8 Summit earlier this month.  According to an article in USA Today, “Even the [carbon emissions] targets set by G-8 nations Wednesday are murky because starting dates are adjustable. While European nations want to base the 50% and 80% cuts on 1990 emission levels, the Obama administration and legislation passed last month by the House of Representatives call for using higher 2005 levels as a baseline. That makes the reduction easier to achieve.”  See what I mean?  Perhaps this is why Walmart is throwing its weight behind this effort.  At the end of the day, it’s better for them and the rest of the private sector to take charge and drive progress than wait for politicians to get their act together and dictate the rules.