Companies have a crucial responsibility in addressing global warming. They must prioritize sustainable practices, reduce emissions, and invest in renewable energy sources.
By taking proactive measures, companies can mitigate their carbon footprint and contribute to a healthier planet for future generations.
However, as long as companies prioritize short-term profit over the well-being of the planet, change remains an illusion. It is essential for companies to realign their financial priorities towards sustainable investments and eco-friendly practices. Only then can we hope to reverse the trend of global warming and protect our environment for future generations

I definitely agree with you, many larger companies are way too obvious to the harm that their non biodegradable waste is for the environment. I feel that the larger food and grocery stores need to start solely only allow biodegradable bags/ packages.

Very true, and the people with all this money tend to say they help the environment or are going to, but don't actually act on what they said.

Very true, and the people with all this money tend to say they help the environment or are going to, but don't actually act on what they said.

I agree! We’re told that we can make a difference by turning off lights and water, or buying compostable things, and while this helps, I’ve read that the main problem is the companies that burn fossil fuels, or contribute to fast fashion/consumerism. What we really need to do is get them to stop or switch to different methods, but all the people in power care about is money, and because the things they are doing now are cheap and the more sustainable methods are more expensive, they refuse to switch. Despite them all being some of the richest people in the world and having too much money to even consider spending in one lifetime. I doubt using methods that won’t eventually kill us will affect their style of life too much.

I absolutely agree. A vast majority of companies do not care about their carbon footprint and do not take the necessary steps in order to appropriately limit them just to save them some money. It's completely morally corrupt, but morals are clearly disregarded in the face of profits.

I agree, most companies don't care enough to mention the importance of the earth's safety and where the money goes. They can use their company's popularity to provide information or encourage people to take action. Even if they don't do this, they can contribute by switching from burning fossil fuels to something else.

You’re right, companies hold a ton of power when it comes to fighting global warming. They’ve got the money, the reach, and the ability to push things in the right direction. Still, too many stick with whatever makes the most profit, even if it’s bad for the planet. Switching to renewable energy, cutting emissions, and choosing greener ways to operate shouldn’t just be nice ideas—they need to be the norm. Honestly, as long as companies keep chasing quick wins instead of thinking about the bigger environmental picture, we won’t see real progress.

I completely agree as well. Major companies hold a tremendous amount of power over politics. they can easily influence the political decisions made and turn things toward their favor. Companies are avoiding the fact that climate change is a huge problem. They're only focused on short term revenue and profits. Altogether ignoring the bigger picture that they're slowly destroying our planet because of their greed. Using renewable energy or choosing more sustainable ways to make their products is easy, it's just a matter of whether you care enough about the issue to do it. Because if we continue down this path and turn an eye away from climate change, future generations might never be able to witness snow firsthand or live in a peaceful world without major disasters.

I agree. This is a huge problem, but it's not just companies, it's the very foundation of our society that is the problem. As humans we tend to see the world from a very individual perspective, separate countries, separate poeple. Our society is run on consumerism and capitalism and if we want to live a sustainable future this will have to change. we are so busy with our day to day lives caring for ourselves, our familles, work school, that we aren't able to think about everybody all the time and the impacts longterm of our decisions, so we're left waiting on politicians and big companies to make a difference, but most of them rely on the revenues that come from fossil fuels so they aren't willing to change. politicians are more our elected followers rather than leaders, they have to do what the people want in order to get elected, even if they really want to make change. but since billionaires make their money on fossil fuels they would want to prevent laws and taxes against fossil fuels to keep up their income and so missinformation is spread to the public about climate change and change isn't able to happen at the rate we need it too.

I agree with you. Major companies only care about how much money they can make. They almost have everything you need to push the people in the right direction: money, and influence. But they choose not to. They could easily switch to using renewable energy as they have the money to do it. but they choose not to as fossil fuel is cheap and works well. They are slowly killing our planet without us realizing it. They shut down any talk about how their companies are corrupt and are killing our planet by using influencers to shut us up. If companies keep on chasing money rather than environmental friendly options, we will never survive as a species.

Florida is confronting critical threats from rising sea levels that inundate low-lying coastal cities like Miami and Tampa, alongside increasingly severe hurricanes and storms that escalate insurance costs and damage essential infrastructure. Additionally, warmer air and ocean temperatures intensify environmental crises such as red tide and coral bleaching, jeopardizing our vital tourism and fishing industries. These escalating physical and economic challenges underscore an urgent call to action—both for comprehensive adaptation measures and for bold initiatives to cut greenhouse gas emissions, primarily driven by major corporations. It is imperative that we act decisively to safeguard Florida’s future.

Hello Marina, I agree with you so much here. So many huge cities located on the coasts all over the world are being put at risk due to global warming and climate change like New York, Japan and Florida like you mentioned. Our governments need to do better and warn the people about risks happening. Our homes will disappear! We have to act fast and get our governments and corporates to enforce rules or laws that help prevent the oceans from rising. As students, we can't do too much and don't have a lot of power in changing what goes on with laws. This is a huge crisis that needs to be solved. I heard Tuvalu has disappeared due to sea levels rising so high and had to evacuate, this big problem needs to be fixed before we have nowhere to go.

These days, corporations would do anything for money like harming the enviornment. For example, Elon Musk's rocket debris had been spread out all over the Caribbean. This harmed the enviornment but he can never be held accountable because of the power and money he has. This can also to many other corporations that work in other fields that other related to space. AI companies recycles water that is dangerous for the enviornment if it is ever put in the open. This is just one of many examples. I believe that there should be laws to keep corporation responsible for their actions.

I agree with you. Corporations need to be responsible for their actions, especially when they affect so many people worldwide. Things like mining operations come into somewhere, mine everything valuable, then leave with the profits.  They are leaving the people who live there to deal with the negative environmental effects like water pollution, unbalanced ecosystems. Also, oftentimes the people who live in places full of resources or land  are people who usually don't have the recourses to deal with the problem. Big corporations already have lots of money and power, so if they are held accountable, they could use that money to do something.

I highly agree! Corporate interests contribute tremendously to the carbon in our atmosphere. These people in positions of higher power benefit directly from fossil fuel companies, which furthers their drive for money. Many politicians and climate-change deniers are able to sway the public's opinion on our world's current state, exploiting their voters' partisan identities and tailoring their messages to directly resonate more with their supporters. By doing so, fossil fuel corporations are held in even higher power. This perpetuates the cycle of misinformation, and delays action to be done about climate change because so many people are in doubt of whether climate change is even real.

Lots of major companies make misleading advertisements to convince people of their environmental friendliness. According to Akepa, Keurig led Canadian buyers to believe that their pods are easily recyclable, but their methods, and pods in general, are not accepted by most Canadian provinces.

Canada is in the right for not accepting these derogatory ads!

I forgot to put my sources

https://thesustainableagency.com/blog/g … es/#keurig

Hey another jones, it seems like you cant read. Please read his post before commenting.

i commented on the wrong post

Generative artifical intelligence is very harmful to the environment and has a large carbon footprint; it uses fossil fuels to generate the large amount of energy required, uses up fresh water resources, and produces electronic waste. According to ECU libraries, training an A.I. model can emit more than 626,000 pounds of CO2. That's ~5 times more than the average CO2 emitted by a U.S. car in its lifetime, and ~17x the average CO2 emitted by a typical American yearly. Creating and using A.I. is having an impact on the environment right now, and while it is consumers who are using A.I. features and apps, it is the fault of large A.I. companies that the practice is so unsustainable. The environmental cost of A.I. models is much more than that of one consumer, and it should be up to the corporations to find more environmentally friendly ways of creating/using these services, or not even creating them at all.

Exactly, corperations need to e held accountable for the actions that they do. They gain money from exploiting enviorment and the government don't hold them account in any way despite the fact AI is evolving faster than ever before.

Every time you buy a jar of Nutella, a Hershey's chocolate bar or a bottle of Pepsi, your contributing to the killing of orangutangs and Co2 being emitted. Palm oil is an extremely versatile product and is very common in the US, especially in processed foods. During  the manufacturing, countries such as, Indonesia or Malaysia's rainforests are being chopped down in order to create room for palm or plantations. This is a problem since trees are a carbon sink so they help absorb the Earth's CO2. When there cut down, all the Co2 which was once stored is now emitted. According to Gregory P. Asner at the Carnegie Institution for Science, "Tropical deforestation contributes to about 20 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions." Not only is this issue contributing to climate change, animals specifically orangutangs are dying in the process from loss of habitat. According to Orangutang Foundation International, 1,000 to 5,000 orangutangs die each year in Palm Oil concessions. This is significant as there's only 55,000 to 65,000 orangutangs in the wild. Palm oil is a major issue which isn't talked frequently enough. One way to help is by boycotting brands such as, Pepsi, Nutella and Hershey's for using palm oil. By doing so we can lessen the demand needing less palm oil being manufactured. How can we further lessen this issue?

While Palm Oil's effect on the environment is notable, a big part of the reason why palm oil plantations can negatively contribute to greenhouse gas emissions is because of how land deforestation in countries with tropical climates such as Malaysia and Indonesia. In the years 2001 to 2015, nearly 10.5 million hectares of land have been taken over for the purposes of harvesting palm oil, with many of these areas contained as forests which serve as ecosystems for Sumatran tigers, orangutans, and elephants. As deforestation in these ecosystems continue, forest fires and pollution can pose a risk to residents and nearby organisms. While its easy to criticize the use of palm oil in many products, the reason why palm oil is so widely used--finding itself used in Nutella and Hersheys chocolate bars as you mentioned-- is because palm plants yield about 6 to 10 times more oil than other oilseeds, and is therefore more plentiful and cheaper. In comparison to sunflower oil, which only yields 0.74 metric tones of oil per a hectare of land, palm oil yields an astounding 2.94 metric tones of oil per a hectare of land. If we are to consider banning or turning away to other vegetable oil alternatives, we would need more land to produce the same amount of oil and we would end up creating more deforestation and have a greater greenhouse gas emission at the same time. In addition to this greater yield, Palm oil supports millions of smaller farmers in under resourced countries and palm trees themselves have a longer lifespan, allowing farmers to have a steady source of income year-round. While palm oil might cause deforestation in small parts of countries such as Indonesia, its important to note that palm oil production supports about 2.6 million residents in Indonesia, many of whom struggle with poverty. Instead of boycotting palm oil altogether, citizens in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia and worldwide should encourage in sustainable practices when harvesting palm oil, such as following the NDPE policy (No deforestation, no peat, no exploitation) and certification systems such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).

As of October 25th of this year, Exxon Mobil Corporation, the U.S.-based crude oil and natural gas producer and the retail gasoline brand Exxon Mobil, filed a complaint to the U.S. Eastern District of California, saying that pending corporate climate disclosure laws, Senate Bill 253 and Senate Bill 261 would violate its free speech rights and force it to take on blame for climate change. Under Senate Bill 253, large businesses operating in the state of California have to disclose their complete planet-warming emissions and provide their direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions. ExxonMobil takes issue with this bill and perceives the bill as being framed to be inclined to fault large businesses like itself, which have an inherently large greenhouse gas emission production, rather than being focused on maintaining efficiency. Under Senate Bill 261, companies making more than 500 million dollars annually operating in the state of California are required to disclose the financial impact of Climate change on their business and publicly publish steps they would take to address Climate change. ExxonMobil challenges this bill and takes issue with the concept that the law would require it to "speculate about future development" of Climate change. In response to this appeal, the office of California Governor Gavin Newsom said in an email that it was shocking to see how one of the biggest polluters worldwide was afraid of transparency. Do you think that the District court judge will overturn these two Senate Bills or require ExxonMobil to publicly disclose its greenhouse gas emissions and its steps to reduce these emissions? How will this court case potentially set a precedent for future actions in State and National legislatures regarding the disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions?

I believe that corporations should reduce their carbon footprints drastically, because it is hypocritical to encourage consumers to cut back on ‘luxuries’ while doing actions to maximize their profit at the expense of the environment.

There is no question that corporations contribute heavily to carbon emissions, especially from their unsustainable business practices. However, if these corporations became more considerate about the harm they cause to the environment, and take steps to reduce the harm, then these can be seen as steps in the right direction.

One way corporations can reduce their carbon footprint is to advocate for eco-friendly utilities, preferably ones that use renewable energy sources. A simple utility for this are solar panels. These panels result in clean, renewable electricity from solar energy.

Another way corporations can reduce their carbon footprint is participating in carbon offsetting programs. Carbon offsetting is the practice of compensating the creation of carbon emissions by taking part in programs that 'cancels out' or at least make equivalent reductions of carbon dioxide. This way, a sort of 'equivalent exchange' can be done in corporations that are mostly run by heavy carbon emissions.

One more method of reducing carbon footprint for corporations is the maintaining of supply chains, and making them energy efficient. This way, waste of resources can be diminished, and clear communication between stations of supply can be sustained.

An article about these practices can be found here: https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/how-to … -emissions

I-Pre-SJR State

The answer is both, but i think its more important to change the way bigger companies operate to sway the public into watching their own emission's.

I agree

thank you evan

I believe that climate change is effected more by large governments and corporations, and because of this, they should hold most of the responsibility to work against climate change. It is unrealistic to expect individual actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions alone.

I think that climate change is more affected by larger companies but our own emissions are still important

Both do have an effect, but larger companies have a bigger affect 100%. They have much more influence and also burn fuels at huge levels resulting to way too much CO2 in the environment.

I think that both parties have an effect. We should definitely stop companies from doing so much emissions, like carbon caps and taxes. But, I don't think it's an excuse to slack off on our emissions because "one person does not make a difference." We can also push companies to produce less via email and letters. If enough people send them they will listen. (Hopefully ?)

I agree, thinking that it is both larger companies and our own emissions, because every persons emissions, add up to about the same a large company.

I agree, I think that we all have a part to play in climate change, but large gas emissions do also have a big effect.

I think climate change is caused more from big companies but i also think it is still important to think about our own impact to and try to reduce it

i think it is the big companies that are causing it, but individuals should be carful

Corporations are responsible for a large amount of our carbon emissions. I think that large corporations need to find more enviornmental friendy ways to do buisiness. About 80% of the carbon emissions from 2016 to 2022 can be traced back to only 57 companies. These statistics came from this website

100%. As a society we need to advocate more about how much affect corporations have on the climate, as it is easily the biggest problem related to climate change imo.

I agree too, however I think a couple of these companies make a change on how much C02 they produce all the other companies are bound to follow which would help to lesson carbon emissions by a large amount.

When I calculated my carbon footprint I found that I was far above average because I travel a lot. Air travel is something I do quite often and traveling in planes releases a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere. There is little I personally as a kid can do about this but, some companies could limit their flights. A Some airlines fly extra empty flights just so that they can keep their status, but they are not thinking about the effects that has on the environment. Air travel amounts to about 2.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions which is a lot that most likely could be cut down. We can do our best to limit unnecessary air travel, but in the grand scheme of things we need to be careful and mindful of how the things we do change the environment we live in.

I agree its bad but we cant just limit flights

As a high schooler, I agree it is difficult to affect how you do your air travel, as that is mostly up to the parents. I find myself in the same situation. Another way you might be able to help with all that air travel is making up for it by instead of driving to some places, ride your bike, or walk. That's what I have been doing, and I find that helpful.