Throughout our lives we are constantly told that in order to preserve our planet for future generations we must individually do our part in cutting back on harmful practices. However, does the onus fall on us to not fall victim to this almost conspicuous consumerism that we have become so accustomed to, or on the corporations who are trying to tempt us around every corner and getting away with it via unethical business practices who, in the same breath, would not exist without our demand for their fossil fuels, clothes, plastics, etc. To them is long term environmental sustainability actually desirable?
For the sake of a clear definition of this question I am going to preface this by saying I am specifically pointing my weapon of blame towards those college educated managerial folks who run our corporations, governments, and essentially the people who have power to change vastly more than just their individual effects on the environment, whether that be legislatively or corporately. The ability to have a meaningful impact far beyond oneself is something which the majority of us do not hold apart from the exception of activism which is one of the only ways we can make our voices even somewhat heard.
This ruling class tells us to "listen to the science" when it comes to climate change. We have listened, and for the last couple of decades it has been “the top priority” but the policy has become so passé at this point, something which is taken for granted amongst politicians and the public alike, that people have forgotten that we will actually have to change our current way of life in order to prevent the gradual destruction of our earth. This means that we must stop supporting, and begin to move away from, the noxious economic system which is capitalism. We must find a, or popularise an existing, more eco-friendly and sustainable alternative to the social and economic system we have currently, because we all know capitalism will continue to endorse and justify endless profit driven economic growth without once stopping to consider the repercussions. It is only when we fully comprehend the fact that this growth is wholly destructive to the environment and that it must be stopped immediately that we can begin to make changes, economics after all is the study of scarcity not infinity.
This idea that the markets regulate themselves and that profit motives incentivise innovation, while some believe to be effective, also comes with the downsides of uncapped negative effects to our environment, as profit trumps the welfare of future generations for every successful company. However, is there any incentive for these companies to not use this ruinous and short sighted ethos? To look more long term as the company itself has the ability to live on for as long as it stays afloat even if the people running it are gone? The trick to answering these questions is to separate the folks running these companies and their motives versus what is good for the company itself because it is ultimately made up of individuals and the executives and CEOs don't really care about what happens to the company after they're gone. And why would they? Why wouldn't you tear the world to pieces for obscene material gain in the short term if you're not going to be around to suffer the consequences? It's just common sense at that point.
Instead they would rather blame us. This is a common trend now amongst the corporate elite where they will blame their customers for creating a climate crisis rather than cutting the margins even the smallest fraction in order to cut down their impact on emissions. We have so many examples of this such as American fossil fuel company BP creating the "carbon footprint" campaign. A company who produced 374 million tonnes of co2 emissions in 2020. A company who were responsible for the 2010 "deepwater horizon" oil spill which led to 200 million gallons of crude oil being spilled into the gulf of Mexico which had devastating effects on biodiversity and wildlife. That company is telling you it is your “carbon footprint” that is the problem, not them along with 19 other fossil fuel companies who have created 35% of the carbon emissions since 1965. The obvious rebuttal to these points is that those emissions are fueling our homes and cars and the companies are not wholly to blame in this scenario.
So what is actually being done by these virtue signalling corporations to cut back on their cost to the environment? Where are the statistics which show them leading by example in order to create a "greener future"? To put it simply, they do not exist. We have seen many circumstances over recent years where companies, such as BP, will claim to want to move to green alternatives and then turn around and lobby globally to put a halt on moving away from fossil fuels via the same renewable energy alternatives which they claim they are advocates for.
Starbucks will sell you reusable plastic cups and some companies do little campaigns every now and again but we all know that behind closed doors they are all lobbying for the same uncapped growth which is destroying our planet. Ireland has been particularly bad for this in recent years;
According to an Irish Times article; “Irish companies are among the best in the world at adopting climate targets and policies but fall down when it comes to actually curbing emissions”. Many studies have shown the efficacy of setting climate goals for public relations, however, the reason companies fall short when it comes to actually following through with these goals is because change means a blow to their precious profit margins and, as mentioned before, profit always comes before people in any "successful" company. In the same article we see a report from Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM) which said that “while Irish companies scored highly on governance, disclosures, lobbying (positively) and targets ‘this high-level alignment’ was yet to translate into action”. The idea of radical change seemingly appeases consumers, and therefore is good for the company's reputation, however, the willingness to sacrifice anything in order follow through on this change in the case of either parties, not so much so.
While many acknowledge that long term economic growth is not sustainable, sooner rather than later, we are going to reach our environmental tipping point, the point of no return. So we must stand up to our oppressors who have taken so much from us already in the name of material gain. This is where we must draw the line in the sand and just be as persistent as physically possible until we are able to change and enact policy, in Ireland and globally, which will put shackles on our corporate overlords who really at the end of the day don't care whether we, or our kids, live or die as long as they're making a quick buck.
13 November, 2021