Corporate companies produce immense amounts of pollution that infects our air, water, and land based habitats. Factories are poisoning the air with harmful gases and chemicals, and wasting many valuable natural resources. Corporate CEOs need to be held responsible for the corners they cut in order to make larger profits. Customers also need to shop responsibly and avoid companies that do not take any measures to protect the environment, their employees, or the local community.

I'm aware that there have been restrictions placed upon corporations regarding their effect on the environment, but to what extent do these restrictions address the issue? As it stands, corporations still make up a large portion of climate change and can operate without much care for the environment. I feel that corporations need more limitations placed upon them so that they will have to take responsibility for their actions. Any thoughts?

My question is, how much more money would it cost for companies to switch to more eco-friendly packaging? Given the amount of waste and excess packaging these companies use, it would likely be more cost-effective to use biodegradable packaging that requires less, so why don't they?

Corporations play a concerningly large role in the environmental decline of the modern day. Appliances in previous decades used to be built to last a lifetime, and now they must be replaced every few years. By forcing people to buy low-quality products again and again, corporations contribute to an obscene amount of waste. At the end of the day, all that matters to these big businesses is profit margins, not the increasing frequency of landfills all across the world. Between non-biodegradable plastic products, fast fashion, and water/energy waste during production, corporations are destroying the planet and then pinning the blame on consumers. They pretend to care about the environment, lying about green policies and imploring people to recycle instead of removing harmful business practices. We could do so much to resolve this, whether by imposing legal responsibilities onto these corporations or implementing clean and renewable energy, but doing so requires foresight people don't want to have. Looking toward our future reveals an unpleasant picture of a desolate Earth, and we are more willing to turn a blind eye to this and hope it'll never affect them. Unfortunately, the way things are going, it most certainly will over the course of our lifetimes.

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.

For some people, it’s easy to live your life with only the bare essentials, but for others, it’s hard to discern between if they need something or if they really want something. Now, if you really want to get argumentative, practically everything can be written off as a “want”, including clothes in the summer, blankets in the winter, and umbrellas in rainy days. This is why it’s so easy to berate someone for wanting material possessions, while at the same time you can just as easily wave the blame off of yourself for getting a new muffler for your bike. It’s when you think about how we have been living for centuries without a dire need for anything, and that we’ve been living in excess for so long, that you realize that the question changes from “Do you really need it?”, to “Is my purchase of this item really what’s causing all of this?”. We’ve known that CO2 emissions have been rising ever since the Industrial Revolution, and the main driver of global warming is most likely not the customers that buy the products, but the manufacturers that pump out incredible amounts of waste in a landfill they call products, and don’t even stop for a second to think about their impact on the environment. The environment isn’t solely in the hands of you and whether you decide to buy that Hydroflask or not, but it’s up to the companies that dump tons of oil into the ocean, the same companies that use the energy that just so happens to be the most damaging to the environment. Now, I’m not saying to be mindful of your impact on the environment, in fact, I support those who “reduce, reuse, recycle” and don’t buy tons of environmentally-damaging plastics. What I’m saying is: Be mindful of your waste, but please don’t beat yourself or others up about it. Buy more organic options at the store, support your local farmers and business owners and avoid the companies that emit the larger percentage of the world’s carbon, but please, don’t force yourself or anybody to live a life that you/they don’t want when the real problem is out of your hands.

I agree. Everyone can go on in life without all the excessive things we often buy but many of us can't bring ourselves to agree with this. I know of people who frequently go shopping on a daily basis for things that and very nice to have, but not necessary. Things like celebrity fans rushing to purchase the most recent merch, people immediately buying the latest design that their favourite brand just dropped, and those who are shopping for their 9th pair of shoes are all common examples of how we buy what we want, not need. We have the luxury of getting to choose what we want to buy. Those people in under-developed countries and places don't have this choice. They can only make use of what they find and what they are given. Yet you still see them making the best out of it unlike us who want more and more even if our current item is still in usable condition. All these small little things add up bit by bit as we continue to contribute to global warming.

I agree a lot with this. Currently, I feel like average, everyday people are blamed and made to feel bad for problems that are really out of their hands. Sure, the accretion of normal people's carbon emissions is part of it, but when celebrities are emitting the same amount of CO2 in one 15 minute private jet flight than the average household emits in a year, who is really the problem? The average person doesn't have even a fraction of the influence and power a politician or celebrity has. Telling people the climate crisis is their fault is a hugely mistaken perspective to take. Most families have no option but to buy clothes that are not sustainably made or to buy cheap, non-organic, non-local produce and food. Shaming other people for the choices they make surrounding sustainability is in no way going to help. Change doesn't come from a few people being "perfect", it comes from a lot of people making small, everyday improvements.

I agree with this. However, even though celebrities are producing more carbon than the average person doesn't mean you can't still do your part. Additionally, saying that only celebrities are a fault is false every single person contributes carbon and while it is vastly different amounts that doesn't mean that only celebrities should have to reduce their carbon foot print just because they buy or make things that make a huge carbon foot print. Their fans are also the ones supporting them and giving them a platform in the first place. So, I think every single person who makes a carbon foot print should have to help reduce it in order to stop climate change for good.

My average carbon footprint is 8994kg, which compared to the average American, is quite low, but comparing to the average person overseas, is quite high. Currently I am trying harder to conserve water by taking shorter showers and running the dishwasher instead of handwashing. I'm also trying to limit my single use plastic intake and invest in reusable alternatives. Although I am trying to take more accountability for my environmentally unfriendly actions, I'm wondering when big corporations will, when will they stop sweeping their overuse of fossil fuels or plastic under the rug? What are THEY doing to reduce carbon footprint? Or are they being silenced by the fossil fuel industry in return for money? When will they tell us the truth and stop increasing co2 emissions?

As long as they are motivated by money, they are probably not ever gonna stop unless the government does something about it, plus some corporates are even backed up by the government.

I agree. While Millyvanilly's efforts are obviously beneficial to the environment, and should be continued and adopted by more, I think the overarching issue is companies. If companies do take responsibility for their footprint and ACTUALLY make an effort to change it, then we can expect a more systemic change. Companies are pushing us to use paper bags while everything you see in a grocery store is wrapped in plastic. While I do think that individual efforts are important, companies need to change and the government needs to step in.

Many grocery stores and restaurants overstock and waste 100s of pounds of food per year. Although there are corporations and groups trying to speak out against this, but these companies stay silent and continue to waste food. If we want to see a change in this behavior, we have to all work together to protest.

Conner i disagree with you because it starts with you

Replying to Loic1234567890: It is somewhat true that it "starts with you"; we should all do what we can to decrease our carbon footprint. BUT, part of the reason people's carbon footprints are so big is because companies don't make cheap, sustainable products. As Connor mentioned, many things in grocery stores are wrapped in plastic, and often those plastic-wrapped products are cheaper; many people can't afford to have a lower carbon footprint.

https://instituteofsustainabilitystudie … -products/

Here is an article that may be useful.

I agree in part with connor4412 and Millyvanilly. In my opinion, the everyday person should do all that they can to create a more eco-friendly life, but we also have to look at the large corporations that have a huge footprint. As with the Nestle issue, Nestle was removing the water from a creek way up in the San Bernardino mountain range (California), on a permit that expired in 1988. Ever since that permit, they had been taking just about all of the water from that area, leaving the natural wildlife next to nothing to live off of. Just in the past five years, the company was forced to stop pulling. We need to recognise these situations more frequently, so we can help our environment out as temperatures rise globally, and terrain gets drier. I also believe that we (as a planet) would be way better off if our big factories and companies ran off of renewable energy. For example, a large company is limited in the amount of non-renewable power that it can take, so it is forced to rely on more natural sources of energy such as solar power or wind power.

I agree with EzquielC big companies don't care about that they're doing about the environment all they care about is the profit they make off of the things they sell, they could drain a place dry and move on to a next place and if they get called out on it they'll pretend they'll stop but just move what they're doing to somewhere new or just change the brands name.

I think corporate responsibility means that companies should care about how their actions affect people and the environment. It’s not just about making money, they should also do what’s right. Sometimes, big companies make choices that hurt communities, and that’s not fair. We’ve learned that justice means thinking about the common good, and that should apply to businesses too. I believe companies should try to make a positive difference.

Industries are among the main sources of environmental pollution, releasing gases and toxic substances into the air, water, and soil. To reduce this impact, companies can adopt clean technologies, such as renewable energies and efficient production processes, to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, improving waste management through recycling and waste reduction, and promoting a sustainability-oriented corporate culture can help mitigate industrial pollution and protect the environment.

I agree, I know companies have to do what is best for them to keep themselves afloat but they should consider the cleaner and more environmentally sustainable options that we have. It would really help in the long run for the Earth and later generations.

I Agree, but I think the only way that would happen is if better methods were cheap, easy to change to, also reliable, and increased revenue. But would seem impossible so I think the only way that could happen is if government legislation forced them to or funded the change.

Most companys care about money rather then the environment.

Corporate responsibility has become a vital expectation for businesses in today’s global landscape, as stakeholders increasingly demand accountability for social and environmental impacts. Companies are now recognizing that their operations extend beyond profit generation; they must also consider their effects on communities, the environment, and the economy. This includes adopting sustainable practices, ensuring fair labor conditions, and actively contributing to local development. By integrating corporate social responsibility (CSR) into their core strategies, businesses can foster trust, enhance brand reputation, and drive long-term growth. Furthermore, transparent reporting on social and environmental performance not only holds companies accountable but also encourages industry-wide standards. As consumers prioritize ethical practices, corporations that embrace responsibility can create positive change while aligning with the values of their customers and employees.

It is estimated that companies produce over 70% of the greenhouse gases within our atmosphere, to combat this it is imperative that consumers spend their money at companies that don't heavily contribute to greenhouse gasses. However, this is not as simple of a task as one may think.
As society has become more aware of their ecological footprints more and more people have been trying to lessen their impact, many people express the ideals of buying products that are better for the environment or “zero waste”. However, like most things, corporations have found a way to capitalize on this. Green-washing is when a company states that a product is eco-friendly or better for the environment, yet, most of the time the positive effect that this product will have is very minimal. To make it even worse most of these companies don’t actually care about the environment, to put it plainly they use green-washing as a marketing strategy. Companies will often charge more for these products, and people will buy, as society has begun to shift into prioritizing sustainability.
Additionally, these companies will often make vague claims that have no proof to back it up, which is incredibly harmful because this will eliminate trust between companies and consumers, making it even harder to get people to buy eco-friendly products. Greenwashing is also harmful because it can make people believe that something is sustainable when it isn’t. This can be especially seen in ads, Google has made millions off of greenwashing ads for big oil companies. These companies singly-handedly provide for around 23% percent of the Global carbon footprint, and that's just carbon, think about all the other greenhouse gases that are likely released.
Companies are thriving off of lying and faking sustainability, they create mistrust between consumers and companies and place profit over the sustainability of our planet. If we continue to allow these corporations to mislead people we are never going to have any progression towards a healthier earth. Corporations should stop greenwashing and need to start actually caring about their ecological and carbon footprint before it's too late.
Sources/further resources:
https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-foo … paign-sham
https://ccsi.columbia.edu/content/oil-s … ate-change
https://makersite.io/insights/whitepape … enwashing/
https://counterhate.com/blog/google-mak … of-cop-27/

The European union is taking actions to reduce/ban greenwashing by banning certain greenwashing buzzwords such as “environmentally friendly”,“natural”, “biodegradable”, “climate neutral” or “eco” without proof of recognized excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim. Unproven claims of durability relative to time or intensity under normal conditions will not be allowed and "claims based on emissions offsetting schemes that a product has neutral, reduced or positive impact on the environment."

It's really good that we are recognizing and sharing how big corporations are making money off the climate crisis. I wonder if there is a petition or something that we could sign to share this topic further?

I do agree that company responsibility is more important than individual effort. While personal changes like using a paper straw make a difference, it is incredibly small and unimportant in comparison to the companies that as Junielle stated, are producing a vast majority of the emissions. I think that the idea of green-washing is also important, and should be government regulated.

I agree that greenwashing is dangerous as we undergo the process of becoming more sustainable. I believe that there should be stricter restrictions for products to be called "green" or "sustainable."

I believe that large corporations need to put more of an effort towards saving and conserving the natural world. Big producers of plastic and other wast polluting our oceans and the environment around us need to slow and even stop the production of many harmful products and switch to more renewable recyclable and efficient alternatives. We need to put more of an effort towards supporting corporations that use and produce these efficient alternative products. We also need to put forward more of an effort to start supporting organizations that clean up and fix the messes made by these large and wasteful businesses.

I agree with this. Big company's produce a lot of carbon with their factories, and then have non degradable packaging. Both are bad for the environment, but since it is out of our control, we should do our best to control what we buy/support and dispose of our waste properly. If one wants to even support further, they can volunteer to pick up trash, or to help support company's trying to be eco friendly. It shouldn't be other organizations duties to pick up after these other polluting companies, but it should be whoever caused the problem. Usually the more eco friendly option is going to be more expensive at the end of the day, as being more eco friendly is more expensive.

The harvesting of crops on large, industrial farms is a process that pollutes the environment. Industrial agriculture often relies on a variety of different pesticides, whether for insects, invasive plants, or rodents. While these pesticides may be beneficial for the growth of the crop, they pose a risk to other organisms that were not its target. According to toxicologist Jesse Meiller at Georgetown University, "...the rain that falls on land where herbicides and insecticides are applied can cause soil and pesticides to run off into local waterways. Organisms that live in those waterways — including fish, invertebrates and even larval stages of insects — can be exposed to these pesticides." The pesticides that the agricultural industry so often uses, if used excessively, can cause harm to organisms unintentionally. Pesticides are also incredibly toxic to humans. According to a pie chart from the National Library of Medicine, the effects of herbicides, the most common pesticide, include liver damage, tremors, and dermal irritation.
Other than pesticides, the agriculture industry also consumes a lot of fossil fuels. According to the Emory Office of Sustainable Initiatives, the agriculture industry accounts for,”approximately 19% of the total use of fossil fuels in the United States. It takes about 7.3 units of (primarily) fossil energy to produce one unit of food energy in the U.S. food system.”
In conclusion, the use of pesticides and fossil fuels by the agriculture industry is harmful to people and the environment.

Encourage better business practices. This would encourage them to find better sources of power so they would reduce carbon because they won’t want to pay the carbon tax. The research for pollution clean-up has come a long way. Places like MIT have developed a new system that would basically pull carbon out of the sky, and businesses could pay to enact it. If businesses took responsibility for their pollution and helped to clean it they would be contributing to the solution. Right now businesses just get away with their unsustainable practices and it is a very harmful system. If there was an actually enforced law to make businesses pay for the amount of emissions they produce we may actually be able to afford clean-up. Converting to sustainable practices would boost business popularity as the public would want to support environmentally conscious businesses. It would be more expensive to enact and production might be down for a little while but if it’s between something and nothing a business still wants to make money. It would cost businesses 70 dollars per ton of greenhouse gas emissions. 35 countries currently have a carbon tax, the US does not have one and it needs one. Every country could benefit from a carbon tax on businesses because every country contributes to emissions. Businesses make up 70% of emissions and 5,489 million metric tons came from the US in 2022 alone. If corporations were required to pay the carbon tax we would have $384,230,000, based on the 2022 statistics, that could go toward cleanup technology and or operations to improve the environment. The only place that had a failed implementation of carbon tax so far was Australia. Most carbon tax prices fall somewhere between 69-73 US dollars per ton, 70 USD seems like a relatively reasonable amount if it were implemented worldwide. Businesses would have a choice between contributing to clean-up operations, new technology, or even planting trees. They would be given an opportunity to be a part of groundbreaking technology that would pull their harmful emissions out of the atmosphere. It would be expensive and many businesses would dislike it but if they keep going the way they are, the world won’t be here to continue running their business. We have to save the planet from these corporations that are left to be destructively unchecked.
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://ww … 74bDHkl0rJ
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/blog/mo … -companies

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/invent … d%20sector.
(The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks link)

Are big corporations really acknowledging this problem? Or is it that they claim to be to not be attacked by protestors?

It’s happy to hear that Taiwan’s coal industry will minimize their production by half in 2030 and completely stop using coal completely by 2060. But this is just Taiwan. What about the rest 200 countries? Like the US, Germany, or India? All they want is money and when the time comes that people can breathe fresh air outside, there is nothing they can do about it but keep the money for themselves, making the poor suffer and rich live life like in a video game. The human population on Earth can die out by 2200 if we don’t stop climate change and major cities in Florida and Pakistan by 2100 will be flooded. What would million’s of people do? They can’t just make a new home when the air outside isn’t good to breathe. Big cooperations will always deny the truth for example the Taiwan Formosa claims to not use their chimneys. But at night when everyone is a sleep or when it is very cloudy, they would turn them on and you would barely notice it. So I think, in general, big corporations don’t acknowledge this problem.

My carbon footprint is 7285kgs, which is not much since in my country there is an average of 6968kgs of carbon emitted. However, I could try to reduce it even more because I make some mistakes when it comes to protecting the environment. I should use fewer plastic bags when I carry my lunch to school and take a Tupper so I wouldn’t waste that unnecessary amount of plastic.
On the transport matter, I can’t do much to change the quantity of carbon that I emit because I live far from the city and from my high school so, I have to travel by car. Despite that, I could try to avoid the car whenever I can and walk as much as possible.
To conclude, I think that our society in general is very consumerist, and we buy a lot of things that we don’t really need such as food or clothes. I think that we as a group should try to consume less and just buy the necessary to live and not waste.

Yah, I am in the same case of you. I have a big carbon footprint. I use recycle bag to not use plastic bag and pollute the earth. Sometimes I use my bike or walk when it is possible, my high school it's very far from my home too, so the morning I walk to go at school but to go back home I take the bus. I would like to more discuss about that because I like the environnment so if you want you can come dicuss with me on my email adress: lymu.49@gmail.com

There is no voice too small to make the slightest or biggest impact on a situation that will, as time goes on, affect every human being on a global scale.

Corporations can indeed do more to combat climate change, by acknowledging their involvement and the effects they've had on their carbon footprint. Straws, for example, especially plastic ones, have made a dramatic shift in the retail and restaurant industry. It was only after advocates for those impacted by these plastic straws made their voices heard to stop the devasting effects they had had on turtles in the ocean and marine animals, in a more general sense.

We can only voice our opinion in rallies and peaceful protests to push change, and hopefully see change in response and acknowledgment of the efforts made by the protesters.

To rephrase what was said above by me, in terms of what we can do to voice our opinions, I would like to add that rallies and peaceful protests are ways in which we can promote and encourage change, but it is not limited to these actions.

Every little thing that can be done to slow down climate change is important, but it doesn’t make that much of a difference unless everyone is doing it. While we should still do as much as we can individually, it would be more impactful if we could convince other people in our community to do small things as well. Perhaps we could buy reusable grocery bags for neighbors so they aren’t using plastic ones and offer to carpool with friends to save gas. A single person's low carbon footprint means nothing if it’s surrounded by high ones. The everyday lifestyle and norms participated in by everyone (especially in America) are the things that need to be changed the most.

I also agree,
My carbon footprint was 18,464 and I did not think that my carbon footprint would actually be that high. Though my carbon footprint was so high because of transportation, so if I cut down the amount of trips that I take each year by plane and instead of taking a car ride to places, walking it would help decrease it drastically. There are many ways to reduce our carbon footprints drastically, but there is a difference between reading about them and acting upon them.

I agree with you, we should try to buy more necessary things and less waste. And I recommend using a bike to travel to your high school, although it may not be a necessary item to have to live but it emits less greenhouse gases than the car. And instead of walking to your school and having to worry about waking up early and being late to school the bike would be faster than walking or running.

I have a carbon footprint of around 17,000 kgs per year, but only 382 kgs of it comes from purchases. I believe that most corporations quite literally do not care about the environment and are only looking towards making bigger profits. We as consumers can always try and buy things that are friendly to the environment and use recyclable or reusable bags, but the corporations themselves are the ones that need to put their huge amount of money towards helping combat climate change.

I would say that I have a pretty high carbon footprint unfortunately due to using planes for transportation but I wouldn't say my purchases or buying of more goods significantly affects my carbon footprint. With that being said, I think every individual can do a little bit to improve the world around us whether that is taking fewer flights or buying fewer items that could be harmful to the environment. I believe our own consumerism has led to the acceleration of some impacts of climate change but I also don't think it is even close to the primary source of pollution or the degradation of our environment. It is always important to look within but to only look at ourselves I believe is completely letting corporations off the hook for their part in this problem. Many of them claim to have carbon-neutral goals that they haven't put the effort into hitting and instead would rather feed into consumerism for their own profits than try to make an impact on our environment. Consumers will always pollute way less than the corporation will contribute to greenhouse gas emissions through activities such as energy production, transportation, manufacturing, and agriculture. The extraction and use of fossil fuels, as well as deforestation and land-use change, are significant drivers of corporate emissions. Stats such as these: "Since 1988, just 100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to this, only 25 corporations and state-owned organizations were found to be responsible for over 50% of the global industrial emissions2 during the same time period," really show how much corporations influence this issue. This is the source for the stat: https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/global-s … e%20period.
In conclusion, I think looking inwards at ourselves is important and how we fall victim to consumerism and use some types of transportation that are particularly harmful but we also must hold corporations accountable because they will always cause way more harm than any individual.

Yeah, I agree. As humans, we should try to buy the necessary things instead of junk we use one day and throw away the other so that there could be less pollution in the world. Most people's carbon footprint result is very high due to transportation. I had about 20,000 kgs in the section of transportation. This is mostly due to flights worldwide (about 15 hours). My result was also high because I travel in a car and don't use bikes to get from one location to another frequently. However, some days I walk depending on the distance. As we all know, humans should use bikes and walk to get to locations instead of always using their cars. Cars produce about 1.5 billion tons of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere each year. That is a lot! Therefore if we want to make the world a better place and cleaner we should start taking action now.

Water as power is very cheap and easy to use. Sea water is most of the water in the world, yet we still don’t use it as normal and it will be very good for the enviornment. Use water as an efficent power source will be easy and will help a lot to the enviornment seeing that power is most of the carbon footprint we use.

I agree with you because water can be used as power. We can farm this from sea water since there is so much of it. This is also good for the environment because it can suck carbon dioxide out of the air.

water is a possibility and is good for the environment, but considering that big corporations that use gas as fuel would want efficiency I don't see it being that realistic. Big corporations care for money there are only a handful that actually do care and most of those aren't that successful. So although it's a possibility it's not realistic.

GasparRay is right. Companies are greedy by not saving the planet, but by earning money. But when there is no Earth to get money, what are they going to do? If we use water and companies are not greedy enough, half of climate change would disappear and it’s a possibility that we can use this new invention to cars. Japan has already started to make cars based of water but I don’t think it would be likely because oil companies will just pay a lot of money to stop production or they would collapse financially. So it is a 50/50 chance water can be used as power.

One of the things that disgusts me the most in this world is human greed. Take Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk for example, the amount of money they have could do so much good in this world. Using even 1% (even that is way more money than the average person will see in their lifetime) of Elon Musk's fortune could help countries invest in sustainable energy practices, carbon capture technology, and more. However instead of using any of their fortune for good. They decide to raise their prices even more, because apparently inflation effects them so drastically. Apparently a 14.8% raise in average transaction price is so important to maintain an acceptable standard of living for billionaires. And the fact they decide to just not pay their taxes because they just don't want to means it is okay for them to do so. In conclusion most billionaires a selfish, greedy, pigs who don't deserve anything good in their lives and are doing so much harm that I wish them all extremely painful death.

I agree you and with the fact that people like Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk have so much money that they should, and could donate, and contribute their wealth to help with climate change. These two people and many more could act on climate change and encourage others to do the same. An idea for them is to invest money into research surrounding climate change and how it affects the planet. Although I agree with this, I do not share the wish for all of them to extremely painful death. This in my view is taking it too far. Although they are not using their money in a very wise manner, we do not need to wish them painful death.

It is estimated that, during 2015, the richest 10% accounted for 49% of the global CO2 emissions while the 50% of the world in lower income brackets only accounted for a mere 7%. Some of our world’s richest billionaires also produce 1,000,000 times the amount of CO2 than the amount emitted by 90% of people. However, it is never the billionaires that are seen or heavily encouraged to “go green”, no billionaires count their carbon/ecological footprint. Even if every person decreased their carbon footprints to zero a mere 125 billionaires will have created 395 million metric tons of carbon emissions. So why are we, the people that are barely accounting for anything trying to cut down our emissions? Will it really make a difference?
I am not trying to say that regular people should stop caring about their carbon/ecological footprint, but rather that the drastic changes that need to be made in society are not by the general public but by large corporations and by our world’s top 10%. If even one rich/famous person, I will use Taylor Swift as an example, stopped flying on private jets then that would account for 1,000 people not using any energy in their homes for a year. All it would take is the banning of private jets/flights and tens of thousands of energy would be preserved. Or if the governments of the world were to regulate carbon emissions of major corporations, especially big oil, then our global ecological footprint would most likely go down by a lot, especially since Big Oil produces an approximated 5.1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases. Such major changes should be made instead of regulating average people’s everyday lives.

Sources/Additional Resources:
    https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-wo … e-bottom-1
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment … ding-study
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … hy-people/
    https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-wo … e-bottom-1
    https://www.npr.org/2022/11/09/11354467 … -emissions
    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/08/billion … oxfam.html
    https://time.com/6208632/celebrities-cl … ts-yachts/
    https://www.iea.org/reports/emissions-f … ransitions

You've probably seen websites/apps like Shein or Zara or any other website that sells clothes solely on line. If that's the case then you've most definitely seen reports of these "online stores" having terrible working conditions and even forcing people to work very long shifts with little to no breaks. In an article by Time Magazine, It stated "...a documentary by the U.K.’s Channel 4 found that Shein employees were working 75-hour shifts with very little time off." China’s Labor Contract Law states that employees should not work over eight hours each day or 40 hours per week.(china.acclime.com). Not only does Shein violate labor laws, but the amount of CO2 they put into the atmosphere is insane. In the same article by time magazine, it says "the manufacturers’ rapid use of virgin polyester and large consumption of oil churns out the same amount of CO2 as approximately 180 coal-fired power plants...As a result, the company leaves about 6.3 million tons of carbon dioxide a year in its trail..."
In conclusion, Shein and just about any other online fashion store is bad for the environment and their workers.

I agree that fast fashion is bad for both the environment and the rights of workers in the industry. However, completely abandoning the industry is risky. Due to the poor quality of fast fashion, the price is relatively inexpensive which makes it more affordable for people to purchase. Additionally, despite the poor working conditions it does provide some jobs for people and if people boycotted the industry, millions of people would be left without a job.

i agree that fashion is also bad for the enviroment because it can cause alot of stress with wasting money and bills.Also i agree that and if people keep going for fashion it can give a better change to the people and could go to a good cost

A cargo ship produces tons of used oil, detergents, and chemicals every day. This mix is supposed to be treated and then disposed of on land, but this is often not the case. Most crews don't comply with these laws, they pump the toxic sludge into the sewage tank and into the sea. This is done to lose weight and lower costs for businesses that operate on tight schedules. We can use satellites to find spills, Skytruth operates a satellite and found more than 1500 potentially illegal dumps around the world over 18 months. Spills quickly dissipate making them harder to trace and killing billions of microorganisms like plankton and fish larva, destroying ecosystems. Policing 100s of thousands of container ships is an impossible task. We don't even have an estimate of how many incidents there are as they happen out at sea. The figure for the estimate of oil spilt could be as height as 55,000,000 Gallons(208,197,648 Liters). How laws are enforced differ from country to country and range in punishments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TiMy27yhFw
https://skytruth.org/cerulean/
https://www.copernicus.eu/en/copernicus … g-overview

Big corporations have a very large influence of the carbon emissions.  Corporations have been the cause of about 70% of all the carbon emissions, showing that these corporations should be doing more to reduce the emissions. Because of this, a single person doing their best to reduce carbon emissions will not make a difference, but as a group of people, we are able to convince many corporations to take steps in order to reduce their carbon emissions.

We are have to make sure we aren’t wasting things, do next time you go to the market and buy stuff, think if it is all necessary. Also, when you want to drive a round trip around, considering you bike is a very good idea. Also, check the lights, is it really needed now? These problems have to be considered to save the planet

I agree. In large stores, your logical decision-making power can dwindle rapidly. Therefore, it's harder to make purchases that you know you'll absolutely need for the foreseeable future or are guaranteed to eat. We need to be more diligent about making purposeful purchases in supermarkets and other stores.

Exactly! It is so common nowadays to overlook how much food, water, and electricity we use and waste on a day-to-day basis. I like the way you said, "Is it really needed now?" People need to ask themselves this question more often when using electricity or buying things from the store. Some people may want to say, "Oh, it's okay, it was only on for a few hours," or "It's fine, it's only one bag of apples, it won't hurt anyone if I toss it." Even if it's just a couple of hours or just one pack, it will add up as more and more people keep up this habit. If EVERYONE is just doing a little bit, it can very quickly become a lot.

This is a great point, I saw survey done by Slickdeals saying that 73% of purchases are not planned before and are made on the spot at the store. If we just planned out our grocery routes a bit better we could reduce our footprint by a sizable amount.

Since companies operate on the principles of supply and demand, we have the power to change things through what we buy and from whom. The less we buy products that cause harm to the environment, whether in use or when made, the less profitable it will be for the companies to produce these products, and so they will make these things less, or even stop making them entirely. This doesn’t mean it is our responsibility for companies actions, it is important for them to govern their own actions, but when they do not, we can do something about it.

Although everyone’s individual carbon footprint is still important, nothing one person could ever do will ever make an impact on the damage big corporations do. For example, Amazon emitted seventy-one million five hundred forty thousand metric tons of carbon, according to CNBC. Inspire Clean Energy said the average person around the world produces four tons of carbon per day. That means that it would take seventeen million eight hundred eighty-five thousand individuals to create the same amount of carbon as Amazon. This number is of course not completely accurate because it’s an average. Someone from America would have a much higher carbon output than someone in India or almost anywhere in the world. In my opinion in most places people don’t need to work on their carbon footprint all that much, America is my exception to that. Another piece of information I got from Inspire Clean Energy is that the average American produces twenty metric tons of carbon, that means it would only take three million five hundred seventy-seven thousand individuals from America to produce the same amount of carbon as Amazon. That is a sixty-seven million nine hundred sixty-three thousand person difference from the original number using the world average. That all being said, even with all Americans the corporation beat them by miles.

After reading a lot of other people's posts about this topic I was horrified. I mean, 100 corporations resulted in 71% of CO2 emissions??? (Thanks to @ARWENB for this info) That's insane, and where I live we can sometimes see this. When I drive down to West Sacramento, I see this line of factories, and coming from that line of factories are clouds of smog polluting the air. In less than a minute I saw billowing puffs escape into the sky, and I wondered, if all that is released into our atmosphere in less than a minute, by a tine line of factories somewhere in California, how long can this go on for? This is barely 0.5% of all the factories in the world, how is our sky not grey yet? Since the Industrial Revolution, our atmosphere has been filled with smog! It's terrifying to see and even more terrifying to think of the consequences.

When you think of the people mainly responsible for climate change, who do you think of? The first thing that comes to mind when I think of big companies is extracting fossil fuels and deforestation for agriculture. It's our choice whether to accept it or not. These companies rely on us for their power and profits because we are the ones buying their products. The sole focus of these companies is their financial success, so if we refuse to support them, they'll discontinue. We need more than just recycling to make a significant impact on climate change. We need to change the big things, we are in more control of them than we realize. As much as I wish they would, we all know that these companies aren’t going to take responsibility for their actions, which is why we need to take responsibility for ours. Before we fight against these companies and blame them for what they are doing wrong, we need to think about how our actions tie in. I’m not trying to defend them, because what they’re doing is wrong and they should admit that instead of denying it; but how can you protest against deforestation, and fossil fuel extraction, but still use gas to fuel your car, electricity in your home or continue to eat meat at every meal? I know that we won't be able to change right away, it will take time and it won't be easy, but we need to start looking for more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives to our everyday lifestyle. When we have done that then we will hold all the power against these companies.

Large companies such as starbucks have begun using paper straws instead of plastic straws, should other companies begin setting aside money to protect the enviroment?

I agree but at the same time, I don't because big companies like Starbucks need financial income for the company and employees in order for the company run properly while helping out the environment by fixing the cause of the problem in their institution in order to contribute to the environment.

Big corporations have a responsibility to manage and lower their own carbon emissions. When huge, wealthy groups are playing such a big role in the climate crisis, the individual person is almost completely powerless. The people in charge of these organizations have a responsibility, to themselves, future generations, and the well-being of our planet to lower their own emissions.
In addition, I believe that as a society we need to start taking measures to bring down these corporations ourselves. We have normalized industries like the fossil fuel business, which emits such a large amount of greenhouse gases in comparison to other industries. We have already begun to take measures, such as switching over to electric cars and installing solar panels in our homes, but it is nowhere near enough. As a group of people, we need to move completely away from fossil fuels and other ways of energy that are so damaging to our environment. If we ourselves are not willing to take the steps to save our own planet, how can we expect to get these corporations to do the same? As long as there is demand and money, they will continue to do what they do. We need to make a point.

Attempting to end climate change as a whole is something that will take many many years, but there are actions that not just people can take, but also huge companies and factories can take to make those years shorten. The biggest contributor to climate change would have to be oil, coal, and gas. Probably the biggest cause of the vast amount of CO2 we have in the atmosphere now would be because of CO2 human made activities. The man made factories of huge companies are contributing to the amount of greenhouse gasses being put into the atmosphere by continuing to use fossil fuels being taken from the ground, while also burning immense amounts of coal. When fossil fuels are burned, they release large amounts of carbon dioxide into the air and pollute it (2019, ClientEarth). Not only do these greenhouse gasses cause climate change, but they also create huge health risks for the human population, especially the people that have to live close to the factories that burn them everyday. While the easiest thing to say is to just tell the companies to stop using fossil fuels, it isn’t as easy as that. Fossil fuels have been used for over 200 years and are especially used by some of the largest companies for make some of the most popular products for human consumption. It may seem like trying to end the use of fossil fuels in factories isn’t really something the average person could help to stop, it actually very well could be. While this would take a long amount of time, if everyone boycotted companies that burn fossil fuels and stopped purchasing their products, they would run out of business, eventually being shut down, unless they stop contributing greenhouse gasses. Shutting down these companies would cause  such a huge reduction in the amount of CO2 being put into the air, but it would take the commitment of almost the whole population to stop it. If everyone could reduce their purchases from corporates responsible for using green house gasses, I believe that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would change drastically within years.

I understand your concern but is this realistic? Companies produce about 70% of all GCG emissions and the top ones aren't located in the United States. Yes, you can boycott them but what is that going to do for you? Assuming you have a car and you need it to travel, boycotting these companies will make you homeless. I understand you're point and yes it is an issue that needs to be changed, but looking at this realistically this isn't an appropriate approach.

Individual action only goes so far. We need government policy to stop massive corporations from destroying our planet!

I absolutely agree, but I think individuals must also try to hold corporations responsible and not rely on the government to solve everything.

I agree but I also think it is easy to blame corporations because individuals mostly see destruction from the hands of these corporations. It seems as though this hate towards corporations is blinding individuals from taking responsibility for their participation in the destruction of the planet

I agree both are at fault

You can't blame corporations when corporations make money off the people. I'm sure you shop at a grocery store or order from companies online. If you are gonna blame cooperations you need to take account of the people who use their services, maybe you do.

When you shop at grocery stores, or online, you are contributing to these massive corporations "destroying" the planet. You can't argue that these companies are destroying the planet when you are possibly providing them with the materials to do so. If nobody was buying from them, they would go out of business and we wouldn't have that problem.

Corporations are forcing the issue onto individual responsibility and making it seem like there is nothing they can do when they have many alternative options to turn to. Companies like Shell that sell gasoline, which contains oil and when burned releases lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, are trying to decelerate the speed of the climate crisis protest.

This is so true, and it's especially infuriating because Shell and Exxon push so much carbon footprint messaging. If the public believes the climate crisis is the fault of individuals, they can continue to avoid responsibility.

I mean this is true but what else are they going to do? Not everybody is going to convert to using a gas alternative like electricity, it is not a war on cooperation but between people. If you want anything to change then people problems must be addressed first.

That's kinda just a blanket statement there are some corporations that are doing good for the world. If you just blame corporations for everything then your probably not gonna end up finding a good solution to fixing these problems.

Corporate responsibility is very important, and a large contributor to climate change. according to the natural resources defense council, 100 energy companies have been responsible for 71% of all industrial emissions. This means that big corporations have the largest impact on carbon emissions, especially when compared to the average human. Also, many of the products that negatively impact the earth that is used by the average person are made by corporations. The process that food and beverage companies use to make their products results in 630 metric tons of greenhouse gases according to the NRDC. This could be prevented by uses eco-friendly processes of distributing and making these products.

Sources- https://www.nrdc.org/bio/josh-axelrod/c … recognized.

-

Much of the pollution and greenhouse gases released are from the burning of fossil fuels in factories. We need ways to either cut our energy usage or replace fossil fuels with something more environmental friendly, such as bio fuel or renewable energy. Companies need to take responsibility to lessen their carbon footprints which could impact our future. There could a gradual change to reduce pollution so we could slowly get used using more environmental friendly energy. Some ways that could persuade companies into doing so are incentives such as money or land or there could be a law passed to slowly phase out certain fuels or cut back on using them.

One of the biggest problems right now is the current climate issue. Companies such as those in the fossil fuel sector and factory farming, are the majority to blame for past and present carbon emissions. I think that businesses need to do more to lessen their carbon footprint. A study by The Carbon Majors Database found that since 1988, just 100 corporations have produced more than 70% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. This shows the necessity of business action in resolving the climate crisis. What does it mean for businesses to act more responsibly? It means taking action to lessen their carbon footprint, such as using renewable energy sources, increasing energy efficiency, and funding the development of low-carbon technologies. It also means being accountable for their environmental actions and being transparent about their emissions. Getting polluting industries to change their behavior is not easy. Companies must make money for their supporters, which conflicts with the requirement to change emissions. Governments have the power to reward and punish businesses to motivate them to take action. Companies might be subject to a carbon tax, based on their emissions. Corporations would have an incentive to cut back on emissions as a result. Consumer pressure can also be helpful for motivating businesses to take action. Consumers can pay choosing to support companies that are sustainable. This can create a demand for sustainable products and services, which can drive corporations to take action.

References:

The Carbon Majors Database. (2017). https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable … ate-change
Climate Action Tracker. (2021). https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (n.d.). https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings … convention

The government has a responsibility to help and protect the lives of future generations. We are nowhere near where we need to be. The website I used said that by 2100, a third of Florida will be underwater. I know that Florida is a controversial place, however, there are still people that live IN Florida that would loose their homes by the time it gets to 2100.

https://www.greenmatters.com/weather-an … 20reported.

While Florida may be end up underwater, that is an insignificant amount compared to the total amount of land we will lose if the oceans continue to rise. One of the most notable places that is disappearing due to sea level rise is Venice (a small network of canals, islands, and bridges just off the coast of Italy), which already has sustained serious damage due to sea level rise, but by 2100 it may be entirely underwater! This is due to global warming. Global warming causes massive sheets of ice from both the north and south of the Earth to melt, and when a continent's worth of land ice melts, it rises the water level significantly. This throws off Earth's natural balance in the first place, but it more directly affects the land available to us as humans, a space which is shrinking incredibly rapidly (compared to Earth's rate of change). But how do corporations factor into this? Corporations and commercial production factor for most carbon emitted each year, and that means they factor the most in climate change. The more climate change each year, the more land ice melting there is, and the more sea level rise there is. This means that industry is also the largest contributor to climate change. But in America, at least, I do agree that the government has most of the responsibility for reducing these industry emissions. As they are generally the only larger organizational body with control over these corporations, they must use their power to try and reduce emissions. Luckily, putting these measures in place is predicted to reduce carbon emissions by massive amounts, which will help with the overall effort to reduce global warming. However, what can we do to stop companies from putting such a massive amount of CO2 into the air? We can stop supporting their destructive processes. By protesting against and boycotting carbon heavy industry (trying to force them to change), and trying to get the government to do something about it, we can reduce the emission strain that comes from industry, and reduce the effects of global warming. And if we act fast enough, we might just be able so save the Floridians AND the Venetians from a watery doom.

Sources/Additional Information:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2022 … om-sinking
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sea … %20sheets.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/source … -emissions
https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/clim … nitiatives
https://news.mit.edu/2021/reducing-emis … ustry-0721

I think that we should definitely hold large corporations accountable for their significant role in the world's pollution and climate change. These corporations are responsible for a considerable amount of global greenhouse gas emissions. According to 'Economist Impact', fossil fuel companies have contributed to over a third of our world's greenhouse gas emissions since 1965. If we hold these companies accountable then we can boost the motivation for companies to take part in more environmentally friendly ways of business to lower their carbon footprint. To address the global catastrophe and establish a more sustainable future, it is necessary that we hold large corporations accountable for their actions.
Source:
https://impact.economist.com/sustainabi … ate-crisis

Corporations are responsible for a majority of the world's Carbon output. I think it is important that we address their large contributions to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There needs to be regulations on the way large corporations produce and dispose of their products. A lot of these emissions are coming from the top energy conglomerates such as Chevron, PG&E, and many more which have created about 71% of all industrial emissions, but also from food and clothing companies. I found that food companies produce around 630 million tons of emissions per year! These goods take a lot of resources to make, distribute, and sell creating a large carbon footprint. And once a person buys it they use this item and eventually throw it away. Companies are constantly producing things at rapid pasts to keep up with demand. And some of the time clothing or food isn't always bought and is disposed of. These companies need to drastically reduce their emissions. The first step in doing this is accurately tracking how many emissions large companies are making and ensuring that they are accurately reporting. Also, continually upholding an agreement that would have consequences. This is difficult for a single person to do but voting and electing people who care about our environment is essential in getting people's voices heard. Unfourentley, greed, and corporate gain can come before the well-being of humans for these companies. So, spreading awareness and advocating is necessary for our futures and those after us who are at stake if things don't change.

I was reading from

https://www.nrdc.org/bio/josh-axelrod/c … wn-and-act

A corporation will produce staggering amounts of greenhouse gases when manufacturing a product or expanding their business operations, making them dominant contributors to global warming. A corporation is also unlikely to change these practices without reason, as it is a company’s goal to gain money, and so it will do whatever is most profitable, disregarding even the most harrowing of environmental concerns. As an example, consider the continued prevalence and innovation of tobacco industries, despite it being proven that smoking causes cancer. In order to discourage corporations from emitting so many greenhouse gases, governments should directly and brutally tax their income if a company’s carbon emissions exceed a scientifically acceptable level.

I agree, people are unaware and or uncaring of what damage they are causing to our environment due to their need for greed.

I agree, corporations are the largest problem and governments should regulate them.
As of 2015, only 100 companies produce 71% of global emissions. That is a huge number, more than ⅔ of total emissions (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable … ate-change). Clearly, even a small reduction in each company’s emissions could have a large impact on global emissions as a whole. I like your example of the tobacco industry. It highlights how unnecessary most carbon emissions are and how even though there is so much evidence to change, the government needs to step in for change to occur. One way governments can regulate emissions is like you said, through a carbon tax (https://www.c2es.org/content/carbon-tax-basics/). California and other states have already implemented carbon tax plans, so it is not a stretch to say that the United states could implement something similar(https://carboncredits.com/california-carbon-credits-how-does-it work/#:~:text=The%20current%20price%20for%20carbon,at%20~%2430%20per%20ton).

Big companies have always been known to be money hungry by sacrificing our health along with the atmospheres. For example many oil companies emit harmful and toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, not only causing internal health problems to humans, but also destroying parts of our atmosphere. Many large companies also often have a bad habit of mismanaging waste products and those harmful substances are at risk to be accidentally spilt into water systems, causing water pollution, which can be very detrimental to health. Some ways we as a community can help reduce this problem is by not supporting those large companies, and instead supporting environmentally friendly businesses. Although being environmentally friendly is more on the expensive side, if those options are accessible to you, then I would definitely recommend supporting them. For example, you can do something as simple as supporting a small business, like this coffee shop in Oakland that roasts their coffee from a zero emissions roaster and they use alternative sugars in their coffees like coconut sugar and monk fruit sugar that are diabetes friendly. If we all do our part in supporting environmentally friendly businesses and brands then we can help inspire others to do their part and slowly help our atmosphere become healthier once again.
Information:  https://www.unionlawfirm.com/new-york-d … 0illnesses.
https://environmentalintegrity.org/what … d%20States.

I find that all corporates that have a damage on our environment should be held responsible and accountable for their actions and have consequences even though it could be a mistake or a accident, they should still have consequences.

I would agree with your statemant that all corporates have a big impact on climate change and carbon footprint, but the idea of them having consequences is going to be hard to put into the reality therefore there is no way to prove it's just one's mistake. Even though we bring justice to them and they face consequences if that was a fine for them they wouldn't care because they have a lot of money. The only way I see for them to face consequences is for goverment banns or lowers the sells of their products, or maybe give them a time of (for example) 1 year in whihc they need to find more eco-friendly way to produce their product of their face a bigger tax or something in that nature.

I think that corporations should become more responsible and find new ways to make eco-friendly products.:)

I agree

I was wondering how did the term carbon footprint became popularised and with a short google search i found out that the second largest non-state owned company hired public relations professionals to help them promote the idea of carbon footprint as to shift the blame of worsening the state of our planet from the big oil companies and corporations to the individuals. Let’s be honest here, I don’t think any of our efforts to take showers under 5 minutes will compensate for the deepwater horizon oil spill caused by British petroleum which is considered to be the largest environmental disaster in world history.
As a solution, I think we should be presented with alternatives for oil with which we can replace it in our daily lives as to force these companies to stop extracting it.

You have a point of wiew , but i have to admit that your point of wiew is more on something you can not get rid of, but all we can do  is reduce our daily usages .

but as long as we dont force change into the industry we wont be able to start using more eco friendly fuel because we will not have the option to

This is a different scenario , in order to make a change we have to do progress in our own lifes then start criticising the great companies . Im not saying that your point of wiew is wrong , but you have to see more possibilities

there is only one scenario, the destruction of our world which is coming rapidly and we should begin changing the things that influence this scenario in the biggest fashion.

Your name is Stefan L lmao

irrelevant

I am a strong believer that responsibility falls on big corporations to lead the general public. With people following the moves of corporations, when you think about it they are making decisions for everyone. They can also control their customer bases by threatening them. But the bigger picture if these bigger corporations change to more sustainable options it’s likely their customers will change as well. But the corporations can also change their products to be more sustainable, in turn making their customers more sustainable as well.

I completely agree with you! Big corporations have power over their customers that we might not always see. You made an excellent point by mentioning how their customers will likely follow which ever path they lead. If big corporations made an effort to show their general public the benefits of sustainable products, it would likely result in their customers interest in sustainable products. Not only that, but it may inspire other large corporations to take the same path of sustainability.

Agreed. People admire corporations that make good money, they see their product as good due to that. These corporations could start making moves towards helping the climate and the general public would probably follow their example.

100 of the globe’s large corporations create 71% of carbon emissions worldwide. This adds up to about 26.4 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases. The company China Coal alone produces 14.3% of these emissions. These numbers are insanely high, and a change in the world of corporate emissions is necessary. However, the load of these emissions does not fall solely on the shoulders of the corporations. The world’s wealthiest and most affluent are undeniably responsible for more carbon emissions than any other people, and because they are such big consumers, the corporations must produce more in order to keep up with the demand. Thus, altering the way in which companies are producing goods, and campaigning for the top percent of wealthy people to be mindful in their consumerism is vital for our planet.

Yes! So often I see advertisements and propaganda from such corporations speaking on the topic of the individuals carbon footprint, far too many people remain under the false assumption that they carry the burden of climate change and them alone. The very idea of a single persons carbon footprint was largely created by these corporations to force less powerful people into a guilt that would keep them more focused on personal responsibility while said corporations are avoiding anything even vaguely resembling responsibility for their own emissions. It would be infinitely more productive and important to, even in small high school classes, to focus on analysis and understanding of what these emissions mean and where they are really coming from.

I think you are right about how the Bourgeoisie play into the system and cause major emissions compared to the average individual but the diagnosis on how they did it was incorrect. It’s not about the consumption that they disproportionately accumulate though they do generally, it’s about how they create and support institutions that create a far larger effect than any individual no matter how wealthy could produce. An organization, a company, a government will always out produce an individual when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. What makes the bourgeoisie so dangerous is they control the means of production that the proletariat within our capitalist system are forced to operate. The bourgeoisies number one goal is to accumulate more profit and keep Institutions involved in their business stable by any means necessary. By this measure unethical and environmentally damaging practices are not disincentivized which create the problems that we see today. cultural shifts in what is acceptable for the individual to do  will never be enough to curtail the actions of the bourgeoisie  for it is the hand of the government that can only strike down these Godless, greedy, bastards.(place X multi millionaire or billionaire) Using a private jet and getting criticism for that will never be as effective as government policy making such actions either banned or heavily disincentivized. Corporations and the individuals that extract extreme wealth from them must be stopped if we don't want to see our world burn.

Calder is right on the money with it

Many corporations in the U.S and the world, release a huge amount of pollution compared to people in their respective countries. The biggest problem with this is that many corporations refuse to agknowledge that they are harming our planet, they also refuse to find ways to decrease their pollution. I agree that corporations should do something about  it; beacuse if we don't, who will. It is hard to want a reformation of the way a corporation does things from inside the corporation, it takes the power or oppostion from everyday citizens and government officials for a corporation to realise and change. It is hard for one person alone to go up against a large corporation, instead we could form a group of activists whose main duty is to promote solutions to big corporations that work the same way as their old machines, but instead are eco-friendly and decrease the amount of pollution the corporations put out. These activists could also form petitions that call for a reform of these corporation's habits, this petition could force corporations to find other ways to produce their product without using fossil fuels, and could ultimately reform the way we make things and how we use fossil fuels as a whole.

The things that big corporations are worried about is only themselves and how much power they have. Which depends on how much money they have so they will do anything they can to protect their businesses even if they are extremely harmful to our environment. People always try and change their minds but in order to change any part of their vicious cycle you would have to take their power away.

Everyone knows how Corporations are the ones who make the majority of the world products and therefore cause the most pollution. This can be a major problem since many of these corporations refuse to acknowledge their pollution and continue to make the problem worse. The best way to solve this problem is too make these companies take responsibility for the actions through a multitude of ways. We should create laws that prevent companies from creating a certain amount of waste and pollution. We should also make it so that companies are accountable for any injustice or inhumane actions.  Overall we should stop big corporations from polluting and destroying our Earth.

I agree,but in addition to creating lawsand effective controls, you could also incentivize company to use renewable energy or reuse products and invest in moder machinery.

I agree large coporations need to be held more responsible then avrage citizens but individuals should also do their part to help climate change. Over all nothing will change if coporations don't

I agree and it would be such a great idea to get a company or even start your own company and try to help cities in becoming less polluted. I just think it would be hard to get in contact with these cities and also the big companies might not even want to talk to you and they don’t have to if they don’t want to. I think its a great idea but hard to accomplish and a way you can try to help is to start a program in your area and get as many people as you can to try to fix the way we are using our materials so that we don’t waste materials and have those materials sustainable so that they don’t hurt the earth as much. I think this is a great idea and you should do everything you can to fix the way our cities are polluting those big areas and help changes he world.

The thing about that is the owners of those companies don't want that because it means less money for them. We need laws and policies to be put in place. I’m not saying it will stop everyone but it will at least stop some people or punish those who get caught. If we all make small changes in our daily lives that’s great but i think it will be far more effective for climate fighters and politicians to tackle big companies first to show that they want to do something big and they aren’t turning a blind eye to all the injustices these big companies have been allowed to commit in the past.

The problem with getting legislation passed is that politicians often have their campaigns funded by large corporations and in turn agree not to pass legislation that harms these corporations profits in hoping they will get their next campaign funded by them as-well. This is what makes the US government system so corrupt as it is practically run by large corporations. What is to now be understood is that voting for a democratic or republican candidate just empowers these large corporations and therefore if enough votes can be piled up for a independent candidate these large corporations will have less of a hold on the US government. This doesn’t just apply to the United States though. What we can do to disempower these corporations is to not financially support them. For example, instead of using gas, one could by an electric car, instead of receiving power from oil companies, set up solar panels on your home. Although these are expensive measures, even something as small as choosing a product with environmentally friendly packaging helps.

I agree with the user “MilesGupta”, however I believe that their reasoning is not totally accurate. I feel that if we as the population were able to bring an environmental bill to our respective governments that limited corporate emissions by law we would be able to achieve a much lower carbon footprint. I understand that the logistics would be difficult to bring to life, yet if we could stop blaming specific political parties and started committing to a bill that would achieve the same goal regardless of the political affiliations of the company, president (or Prime minster for our international friends), or we the people, we could help our planet and ourselves.

Agreeing with the majority of the post prior, the only part I disagree with is that of not focusing blame on political parties. Agreeing that focusing blame on specific political parties is not progressive, what I intended by my previous post, was to criticize the governmental system in a larger span, including every MAJOR political party, as these are the most likely to be funded by large corporations. What I believe the user above misunderstood, is that I was not trying to focus blame on democrats or republicans, but instead the system in general. Sorry for the confusion.

To add onto the posts before this, I do believe that corporations are major contributors to the climate crises and that in order to make sure that these corporations do not engage in practices harmful to the environment there needs to be legislation passed that would legitimately punish corporations because as of right now, the EPA in the United States does little to nothing to actually stop environmental damage caused by companies. The largest issue that comes with passing such legislation is that no matter the side you are on I.e. political party, there is a large chance that the elected officials representing you are funded by coal, oil, mining, and other destructive industries. That is why I believe that before we begin trying to pass legislation on the topic of climate change, there needs to be an ban on corporate lobbying to ensure that elected officials constituents are being heard, not corporations.

I agree with both “MilesGupta” and “WalterTheWalnut.” It is the fault of our systems as a whole, not a specific set of political parties. However, I do not quite understand why climate action must be political, if it is in the interest of everyone? Why are companies and politicians more interested in wealth than saving the Earth? We should be able to rise together as a society to fight climate change, not combat the greed of world leaders. As children, we should not have to advocate for the safety of our generation, for they should be making active choices to protect us. I understand how companies affect the political systems, corruption, etc, but why has their power stolen their humanity? And is there hope for the future, when legislation struggles to be past, and leaders cannot hear the voices of their people, over their own gluttony?

Biodiesel is a low carbon alternative to fossil diesel. I think that as long as we use road vehicles, we should be using biofuels because they are low carbon and they work in existing fuel infrastructure and engines that don't require harmful metals. Biofuels are more expensive, but I think the government could change this by putting a tax on normal fuel that goes towards making biofuel cheaper and more financially viable.

Regardless, biodiesel is a renewable source, and if we all want to push renewable energy to the next level, I feel plugging in vehicles is a little better option. Although generating batteries for plug-in automobiles has an impact on the environment, it is more sustainable in the long run due to lower emissions.

i believe that corporations are the main people responsible for climate change, as it is them who are the ones who knew about this 60 years ago and did nothing. they are also the ones who continue to emit large amounts greenhouse gasses into the air for the sake of profit. these are also the same companies who control the food markets, and do factory farming. in conclusion, the working class are yes, partly responsible, but at the same time we are also only using the tools that have been provided for us, and most of emmissions are from large corporations. in my opinion, corporations should be the main people finding solutions, cause they caused it.

when considering the fact of corporate responsibility we must take into account that big corporate companies like shell surpressed news of climate change for many years and even when the news broke they actively denied their role.
Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of our global emissions. isn't that crazy? the corporate world shoves all the blame onto the proletariats ( the working class ) and actively greenwashes their own dealings. in summary to move forward and actually deal with the biggest crisis we have faced so far, the companies must actively take a role in the fight against climate change.

Corporate are responsible for environmental pollution not only with the emission of harmful substances but also with all the packaging they use for their products.
In my opinion, to reduce this problem, they should try to use more environmentally friendly and therefore less polluting materials or create packaging with recycled material.
Fortunately, companies in recent years are increasingly implementing a circular economy.

I Think that its really scary how all members of my family generate from 10kg to 15kg of carbon per year. That's an insanely high amount for just one person, especially annually. I wonder how much it would go down if we installed solar panels and flew on planes less as those would be very good ways to lower our carbon footprint. I also wonder how much the average carbon footprint would be lowered if everyone were to do the same.

Corporations emit high levels of greenhouse gases due to their mass consumption of fossil fuels. This leads to an increase in global warming, which is impacting the planet's climate systems in a variety of negative ways. But Corporations still refuse to take responsibility and invest in our environments well being because they value profits over people. They instead push the idea of individuals taking responsibility by reducing plastics use and consuming more substantially which is important but doesn't compare to the impact that corporations can make by becoming carbon neutral.

Corporations emit a lot of carbon when manufacturing or doing business because of how large they sometimes are. I feel they should be more responsible with how they manufacture and go about sourcing their energy for business, they should also be more responsible with how they manufacture items to reduce waste or carbon emissions.

I agree. Companies should be more aware of the damage they are causing to the environment, and should make products in a way that is more eco friendly.

Factories are the second largest factor in carbon emissions as they release a significant amount of carbon into the air. But we can’t just eliminate factories, so we have to make them more sustainable. Factories usually cut corners on managing waste which hurts the environment so we need stricter rules on the removal of waste and recycling. factories also use a lot of natural gas to them running so converting natural gas to more renewable energy would lower their emissions immensely.

Factory farms are constantly cutting down forests to make room for more agriculture, and this releases extensive amounts of carbon dioxide into the air. In addition to this, the demand for meat is increasing quickly. As more and more companies take this higher demand for meat as an opportunity to make some extra cash, more forests will keep getting cut down, releasing more carbon into the air. "With the growth in factory farming," says World Animal Protection, "the most intensively farmed species – chicken and pork – are expected to be produced at levels triple that of beef by 2050."

One of two things needs to happen, either factory farming corporations need to realize the impact their farming expansion has, or governments need to take a stand and create laws preventing farmers from expanding their farms past a certain point. We need to control these carbon levels; we only have one Earth and we have to protect it!
https://www.worldanimalprotection.org/b … te-culprit

Seriously, corporations have been polluting since the 1800's. I mean, It is kinda hard to miss all the smog factories are belching. Let's face it, the only reason, that big corperations aren't getting in trouble for this, is because at this point the world is dependent on them.

I completely agree!! This is such an obvious issue, yet it hasn't been fixed. I think another reason for this is that society are so focused on the individuals, and we feel like we can't reach the larger corporates. But this is a problem because they are the main problem.

Be careful

Do not let yourselves fooled by the big corporations trying to put the blame on the ordinary folks

The sad truth is, the world has become dependent on these corporations, to the point that we cannot destroy them without suffering severe consequenses.

Large corporations such as Amazon, Raleys, and McDonald's should be held accountable for their large greenhouse gas emissions. In the modern world, there are plenty of ways to stay sustainable without blaming the consumers. Other businesses like Seventh Generation and Patagonia are still well known but used recycled and biodegradable packaging. Blaming the customers and consumers is not going to solve the climate crisis, what will save it is switching to cleaner packaging and means of production.

The majority of greenhouse gases are not a result of the common person but are a result of some companies which dump oil or use efficient energy sources. While we do have an effect on the environment, should we be focusing more on individual pollution or that of companies?

As we all know, some of the biggest emitters of carbon are not individual people, but instead corporate entities. While pressure is starting to build on companies to change their ways, few companies have actually gone green, especially large ones. To make other companies make changes, should governments aid them in doing so, and fine ones that do not, just like if companies commit other violations. In other words, should it become law to force companies to be carbon neutral.

I think its really easy to blame the consumer to support the wrong corporations or buying products that are harmful to the environment, that's why people always say to buy from one business or another. The problem isn't with the consumer, one or two people not buying from a specific company isn't going to change the world anyways, but the businesses we buy from. I think corporations need to be held to a much higher standard and must be shut down if they don't meet them. I think it should be a law that corporations have to be 100% transparent with the consumer and their practices.

be careful

Everyone contributes to climate change but corporations contribute much more than any individual person. Having corporations switch to more green methods would substantially slow the process of climate change but not necessarily stop it. Every person has an impact. It's important to influence corporations and people to switch to more environmental friendly methods. No one is directly responsible for climate change, but everyone is responsible for contributing to it. It is important to recognize that everyone plays a part.

I completely agree, while corporations play a very big role in climate change, in the end, we all contribute to it, so it's important that we try to lower our own carbon footprint by doing stuff like reducing food waste, eating less meat, taking shorter showers, and turning off lights when were not using them so we can reduce the amount of greenhouse gases were emitting into the atmosphere.

I agree. People advocating and influencing others to transition to a greener lifestyle can have a huge impact. It might also influence lager corporations to be greener.

I think that since so many corporations have caused so much damage to the environment, there is a lot they need to be held accountable for. But for the green future necessary companies like Amazon and Nestle will need to be non-existent or fundamentally different. They bring a lot of cheap prices and convenience, but the overall cost is to steep to continue as is.

I think because these corporations contributed so much to climate change, that they should first of all make their companies energy efficient. And they should also pay for the damage that they caused.

While human beings across the globe contribute to huge amounts of climate change large corporations are leading the way. Gas companies and other non environmentally friendly companies continue to largely contribute to climate change. So how much have these companies contributed to climate change and should they be held responsible? Should governments step in or will these companies continue down this path?

I think companies have contributed a lot. Government action would defiantly help a lot

According to my research, the united states outputs 5 gigatons of co2 every year. This is equal to 5 billion tons of carbon dioxide. This is a sizeable chunk of the world output. We countries need to be encouraged to make laws reducing carbon dioxide output.

I agree

Do you think the responsibility of climate change is in the hands of the individual or large corporations? Through the media, the individual is taught to believe that they need to make changes in their lifestyle to stop climate change in its path. However, corporations such as Shell and others hold much more responsibility than you'd think. In the article "The Case for Abandoning 'Corporate Responsibility' When We Judge Company Practices" by William Nordhaus on the Time magazine website, the author writes "We are indeed prisoners when we unwittingly trust malicious companies who invite us as guests into their showrooms. These firms know about their dangerous products, withhold that knowledge, subvert science to advance their narrow commercial interests, and put their guests to death." The fact that these big companies are directly withholding information about their products and the dangerous environmental side effects of them tells you all you need to know about who the responsibility of climate change is owned by. Across the board, corporations need to be more open about their carbon emissions and start to think about long-term solutions. Overall, everyone can do something to stop climate change; but the lesson here is that some are more responsible than others. It's time that we as the collective population of Earth start calling out the environmental violence done by these corporations.

I think both people and corporations are causing climate change

Corporations are a huge cause of climate change globally. Without many restrictions being placed on what can be done the wildlife of several countries are being destroyed for monetary gain. We should hold corporations responsible for their involvement in climate change. Only 20 companies cause a third of the world's carbon emissions.

Corporations are the biggest cause of climate change, especially fossil fuel companies such as Chevron and Shell. Richard Heede has found that 90 companies, directly or indirectly, have caused over two-thirds of all the world's carbon emissions. This raises the question, will society be able to hold them accountable for their actions against the world or will we stay silent just because these companies are rich and powerful. It will take a collective effort to make an impact on these companies so it is important that we unite for the sake of our world and future generations.

Self explanatory. Most major names in the corporate sphere are directly making this problem worse by using devices and technology that creates a huge amount of pollution. These products are usually invented by the corporate mega giants themselves and if not, should they still be penalized for using these emission-enhancing methods?

YES they should be responsible. If they can predict their stock prices, then they can also predict the damage they can do in the future. If they're trying to prevent it, then great! But most companies don't really care in my experience.

Corporations should be held responsible for their carbon emissions. Just 100 companies are responsible for causing 70% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. They should not just be able to destroy the environment and have no consequences. Companies like Shell, BP, and Chevron are committing to managing their greenhouse gasses. What they are doing is not enough because they know their companies' effects and are only changing to avoid a backlash.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable … ate-change

Big companies influence individuals to buy more of their product. The way that companies manufacture and/or use this product can be hurtful to the environment. In the article we read, authors conclude that the simplest thing individuals can do is to buy less stuff. Though this is better for the planet, companies won't let this happen. They also say to borrow appliances, or grow your own food, which hurts the industries that are selling these products. Instead of changing their ways to make their products more eco-friendly, big corporations mask their wrong-doings with positive information, and continue to hurt the planet. Some companies even lie about their steps being taken to help the planet, and do these projects on a smaller scale - just so they don't get sued for false information -  which won't help the movement overall.

Source: https://www.sciencejournalforkids.org/w … rticle.pdf

Something that’s embedded in the U.S. system that I find extremely worrying and that is the reason for many issues that we still have today is corporate lobbying. The idea that corporations can spend a huge amount of money to get the government to do what they want is so insanely bizarre and hypocritical to democracy as a whole. There’s a huge variation of companies from oil to banking that pay hundreds of millions of dollars every year to stop or slow down the process of making laws to fight the impending climate crisis that we’re all facing today. This isn’t even mentioning that most of these companies are part of groups like the Business Roundtable where they can all also lobby for each other. I used a lot of information from this article which I highly recommend. https://www.iccr.org/program-areas/clim … e-lobbying

The thing that these huge corporations have that that ordinary people don’t have is power. They have the ability to decide what chain of 20 factories go green or not. What stay, what goes. This is important because the could change the world for the better or not change and go for the worst. They need to change because even if they only change a little, if every one changes a little then that’s a lot of change. Instead of remaining stagnant and digging our own graves we can all move to the future together.

Yeah, they don't do anything for the environnment. They only think of the money and they don't care about the planet where we are living. If the corporate start to try to reduce their carbone foot print, we wouldn't be here. If you want to see what our hight school do for the environnment you can go see this "https://renaudeau.paysdelaloire.e-lyco. … tion-2022/". And I let to you my email adress if you want to have more discussion about this subject. lymu.49@gmail.com

Bet on responsible consumption, based on local products and produced in a sustainable way, and set up your own urban garden. Move in a more sustainable way, by public transport, bicycle or on foot, and buy vehicles that are more respectful of the environment. Choose an energy consumption from 100% renewable sources, purchase low consumption appliances and regulate heating and air conditioning to save energy. Make yourself and others aware of the importance of reducing your carbon footprint. Reduce waste: reuse your containers, recycle them and, if it is not possible, throw them in the appropriate containers.

Corporations produce just about everything we buy, use, and throw away and play an outsized role in driving global climate change. A recently published report identified that 100 energy companies have been responsible for 71% of all industrial emissions since human-driven climate change was officially recognized. Only one hundred companies… so much damage can be done to our planet with the money and power that these corporations have. Not to mention the amount of pollution some of these corporations produce. CocaCola uses 3 million tons of plastic packaging annually, Pepsi is about the same. Plastic packaging can take hundreds of years to decompose, and in the oceans it breaks down into tiny pieces that enter the food chain and kill wildlife that consumes it.
As important as it is that we personally try everyday to lower our carbon footprint, it’s even more important that major corporations drastically reduce their contributions as quickly as possible, or we might not have a planet to live on pretty soon.

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/corpor … every-year

I think the solution to this is a boycott we force Coca Cola to make their bottles out of a more reusable material like paper or something. Or maybe if Coca Cola had soda machines every where we bring a reusable cup and fill it up for ourselves so we dont use a plastic bottle but instead we use our own cups

I agree that Coca Cola and other soda companies should switch to reusable plastic bottles. This will help clean our oceans and help with the co2 emissions.

I agree that it is largely big corporation contributing to global carbon dioxide emissions, but it is also important to think about how those corporations wouldn’t have as much power without the masses of consumers around the world, especially in places like the United States. Things as simple as shopping in locally owned businesses can be a start. If the corporations aren’t making as much money, eventually they will have to change something in order to win back buyers, and if it becomes a competition of who can be the most green, technology will be developed to make that happen.

Uber is determined to become a company whose activity is completely free of emissions, and in pursuit of this the startup Arrival has announced a collaboration with the popular mobility company. Both companies will collaborate on the design of an electric car intended to serve as a tool for electric and shared mobility.

It is not the first collaboration of this type in which the popular transport company is the protagonist, since last month Uber made its alliance with Hyundai public  A deal through which the Korean manufacturer undertakes to facilitate the purchase of its range of electric cars, among which are the Ioniq and Kona electric, as well as the new Ioniq 5 and the rest of the future models of the firm that are presented. As reported, the agreement will benefit Uber drivers from the seven main European capitals, including Madrid.

Regarding the collaboration announced today, and according to the Arrival press release, this electric car is expected to go into production in the third quarter of 2023 as an affordable electric vehicle designed specifically for Uber drivers.

I think it is great that some companies are stepping up to make more environmentally-friendly choices. While we (average people) contribute to some degree, large corporations are the most responsible for carbon emissions. In my opinion, more money should be put towards researching technology that uses renewable energy.

I personally have been super excited to see that care companies are starting to develop and design their own electric vehicles. While it may take a long time to get people to go completely electric, or carless in general, I do believe that its possible. I also believe that specialization such as what Uber is trying to do will end up boosting the economy and creating a new market for car companies in the process. I do think that its interesting to also note that the UK has started developing electric charging roads that charge cars as they drive along them. In fact Detroit has already installed one that serves its purpose well.

I am very pleased to hear that such a big corporation like Uber is taking a stand to go green and switch to electric cars. Because the company is based solely on driving, it’s biggest problem is the amount of emissions they are contributing to the atmosphere. I think it is awesome they are trying to lower their carbon footprint, especially when they could just be sitting back and doing nothing. I hope more big corporations like Uber join in on this trend of being more sustainable, they are the ones in power and can influence peoples carbon footprints believe it or not. But ultimately, it is up to us to make a change and save our planet, in hopes of future generations to be able to enjoy the home we call Earth.

I think its great that a company like Uber is doing this, as a company with so many freelance workers, actively trying to cut their emissions to zero is going to be a big step towards showing that all types of company’s can do the same, which I think a lot of people will realize is possible for bigger companies, causing more people to push for more eco friendly company’s

I think it is good that a few companies are making environmentally-friendly things like this Uber electric car. The companies around the world caused a lot of carbon emissions and if more companies did something like this car it could slow climate change down.

Corporate responsibility characterizes the four main stakeholder groups: customers, employees, shareholders, and communities. We can cater to the success of corporate responsibility by tending to the customers, making them more comfortable and feeling welcome. We can support events for shareholders and communities.

Many people have done a lot to reduce their waste or any kind of pollution they produce in an effort to reduce the overall pollution of our environment. Though this is heavily appreciated we forget that even with this effort corporations still shove many single use plastics (and just plastics in general) down our throats every where we turn, whether it's in supermarkets, fast food chains, or restaurants consuming some sort of plastic is inevitable. Instead of corporations having an option to continue using plastics or not, they should be obligated to reduce plastic packaging etc. this would be a very difficult change but it is what is necessary if we want to make a greater change for our environment. By attacking the roots.

Large corporations tend to gloss over how large of a carbon footprint their corporations leave behind. Of course it's important to take into consideration how much they are producing for the entire world, but if 100 or so companies are responsible for 71% of all global emissions ( according to the article Corporate Honesty and Climate Change: Time to Own Up and Act by Joshua Axelrod) Then we have a serious problem. Companies with such a large reach globally need to own up to their actions and find more sustainable ways to make their products, with the amount of money these large corporations make, it shouldn't be a impossible task. This may not happen for a long time however since corporations tend to make excuses as to why they can't go green, in the meantime it's crucial that people buy from companies who are already using sustainable energy.

This is really interesting, There's an interesting case to look at on the topic of corporate responsibilities in climate change. I am referencing the shell corp case basically stating that they had to not only pay/take responsibility for their own emissions that are made internally in the company but also all the emissions that are caused by their product( gas).  this seems like a big step forward in the movement to keep these large corporations responsible for their carbon footprint and not leaving them any loopholes to jump through

Corporations that spew carbon dioxide is a major reason why climate change exists. Corporations know about the effect that their industries are doing to our planet, but they are greedy for money and continue to go emit Co2 without regard for our environment. Since so many employees and citizens rely on these corporations to make money and everyday materials (such as oil, gasoline, and more), it is hard for corporations to immediately stop making Co2. What we can do is transition to buying from corporations that use more reusable and clean energy sources like wind power, solar panels, and hydropower. This will result in those heavy Co2 emitting companies making less profit since there are fewer customers. We can also make petitions and protests to shut down corporations that expend lots of Co2. We can open more corporations that are good for the environment which can create more jobs for everyone.

I agree with you. We often give the citizens the blame and tell them that they are the issue and need to change their; diet, travel less or buy an electric car, and these are not reasonable requests as some people cannot afford to live this way. If we were to have more developed countries take more responsibilities and actions, it would be more realistic. Even if you as an individual were to cut 100% of your carbon emissions for ever you would be eliminating the amount of CO2 that is being produced EVERY 1 second! It is necessary that these big companies that are responsible for a ton of CO2 production to take action and reasonability for this problem.

I definitely agree. Instead of trying to solve the problem by telling individuals to limit their carbon emissions we should focus on rules/laws to stop huge corporations from dumping co2 into the environment. Also, even if lot of people actually can make a difference, many of them ultimately don't end up changing their lifestyle even if it isn't too expensive or hard for them to do.

I 100% agree with you. A lot of these " go green" campaigns and ads tend to push the fact that the average everyday people are the ones responsible for climate change and CO2 emissions. Although the average person does play a part in CO2 emissions its not nearly as big of a part as these large corporations who tend to just ignore what they're doing to our environment. The average person usually can't afford to " go green" but giant companies with billions of dollars to spend have no excuse as to why they cant make some effort to be more environmentally sustainable.

If we want to stop climate change and make the world a better place, then we need to put more pressure on corporations to reduce their carbon footprint. The top 100 companies are responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions so it doesn’t really matter how much you reduce your carbon footprint, because corporations will still be making more greenhouse gas emissions than anyone else.
https://www.activesustainability.com/cl … 2021864894

When it comes to environmental impact and sustainability, it becomes incredibly hard to compare corporations due to the lack of standardized reporting. Each corporation presents their data in a way that paints them in the most positive light, and the different metrics make it so that the corporations can't be directly compared, apples to oranges etc.
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/24/7375 - this article talks about it in depth

A significant portion of the greenhouse gas emissions released into the atmosphere are caused by commercial businesses. Practically everything from big corporations to small farms produce some amount of greenhouse gases. As a result of this, those businesses will need to significantly reduce their output of greenhouse gases in order to stop climate change. The efforts of individuals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will not be enough unless these businesses also take action.

I noticed that especially recently, in the wave of an attempt to reduce the environmental impact humanity has upon Earth and slow down global warming, many environmental activists attempt to spread the message of personal responsibility and making small changes upon lifestyle, pushing the agenda that this will cause a larger wave of activism. "If everybody changes one thing in their personal lifestyle, it can cause a chain event ! Everyone can do SOMETHING to help earth!" However, it comes down to the fact that companies and large corporations are mainly responsible for many of the climate crisis's we are undergoing right now. They exploit lower class people who are unable to purchase and utilize more environmentally healthy things, and force them to buy more cheap, but also environmentally harming products. There is no way for this group of individuals to change their lives in a way that is sustainable for upper class folks with large amounts of money, but detrimental to lower class folks whose lives are almost entirely consumed with cheap but also environmentally harming produce.

Our current state of capitalism makes it basically impossible for the average person to do anything, anything we do to stop it corporations do tripple to harm the earth. We need to get the big boy corporations to actually help and do something but many are greedy or are gaining to much money to stop. Unless we make a law or change the way our goverment works it might be almost impossible to get them to stop and help but if they did it would definitly slow down global warming faster than ever before.

You are absolutely correct in pointing out the conflict of interests that makes it ill-advised to trust corporations in matters pertaining to the climate. Their only goal is profit, giving them truly no reason to self-regulate. They need to be held accountable for the harm that they have caused and continue to cause to our planet, which we as consumers don't really have the power to do.

Despite individual’s efforts to reduce climate change, unless we can convince companies to use more sustainable manufacturing methods, there will be little positive change towards making our earth a better place. These methods may include switching to more sustainable sources of energy, and using biodegradable packaging materials in packaged products.

I think that larger corporations need to start taking responsibility for the number of carbon emissions they put out into the environment. We as a society can do our best to lower our own carbon footprint, but in the US alone “food and beverage companies create almost 650 million metric tons of greenhouse gasses every year”(Axelrod). Many companies have tried to target ways of lowering the number of greenhouse gases they are putting out but a lot of the time don't put into consideration the upstream and downstream admissions their product makes. So the only way to really help lower our greenhouse gas emissions is to hold companies and ourselves responsible and to start trying to make changes today.

Axelrod, Joshua. “Corporate Honesty and Climate Change: Time to Own Up and Act.” NRDC, 28 Feb. 2019, www.nrdc.org/experts/josh-axelrod/corporate-honesty-and-climate-change-time-own-and-act.

Often times there is quite a bit of responsibility and stress placed upon the consumer to work towards reducing their carbon footprint. What people don't necessarily realize is that it's not only the consumer's job to do that, but also the producers. Pretty much all of the producers are major world corporations and companies and they're a massive contributor to the world's carbon footprint. The unfortunate thing is, corporations are unwilling to step up and work towards creating products that are cleaner, safer, and that use renewable energy because it would cost more. Except the thing is, yes, at first, it would cost the companies lots of money, but as they went on producing these products it would eventually become cheaper and more accessible. So, while some responsibility falls onto the consumer, it mainly and LARGELY falls onto the corporations and companies.

I very much agree, I believe that in our American society there even is a purpose blame that was put on the consumer to make it seem like it is a problem that can be fixed by picking up your trash and turning lights. Yet in reality it is a societal problem that can only be fixed by changing society. This means acknowledging that corporations have a large responsibility to fix this and that on their own they will not change and their goal will only be the short term gain of making more money. Also in the end environmental damage will create a bigger economic crisis in the future which will be worse for these corporations.

I totally agree with your idea, picking up trash and reusing plastic bags and bottles can only go so far. At the end of the day, the main contributors to pollution are the major corporations and factories. There have been movements within large corporations to lower their footprint, many stores now promote reusable shopping bags and charge money for the plastic ones, restaurants are cracking down on the use of plastic straws and shifting to paper ones. However there is still much more that can be done. Coming off the pandemic, I think one thing that we can learn is the benefits of remote work. Companies should support employees to work at home which is more sustainable and may even be more efficient. This is just one simple idea but it would be monumental for corporations to lead by example within saving our planet.

I do agree that the major corporations will need to solve our issues of pollution and that they will need to be responsible for creating a cleaner planet. The only problem is that these companies will not take the short-term loss that would be required for a major change in the industry. To them, it is not worth the positive publicity or the satisfaction of creating a better world when they are making the money that they are in their current state. On top of this, they are under severe pressure from not only the heads of the company and of the industry but also the stock shareholders who are expecting continual growth. They will not only lose money in possible sales but they will lose vital investment dollars that are coming in based on the fact that they are continuing to make healthy profits.

Corporations are great. They provide for the human population by producing things that we need, things that we demand. However, when businesses try to reduce costs or when they try to produce something, they have a huge carbon footprint. Factories will release tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, leading to the earth heating up. A great way to counter this is to have the government regulate more strictly what companies can do in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

The short answer: It depends...

McDonalds: Well known for its' slogan, "I'm lovin' it", Apple: Known for an apple with a bite in it. These Loved and apreciated Well known corporations have a lot to do with Carbon Emissions. They create products, that we, consumers use almost every day in our lives. Let's take McDonalds for example, they produce food by killing livestock, and using the Earth for replenishable resources (Sometimes, maybe non-replenishable). Is it worth, in these Corporations' cases, being producers and using the Earth for its' resources? Are these producers in the right?
Opinions Below!

The Climate Pledge is a bond formed by many big companies such as Amazon to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by the year 2040.  Is this pledge worthwhile in pursuing, or is it too little , too late?

I personally believe that this  is a good effort by companies to try to help reduce their footprint, but if they started this commitment from the moment they founded their companies, we wouldn't need this.

Today, companies are making many products out of plastic, some people think this is wrong, but necessary, because what else are you supposed to make products out of? Well, many plastic products could easily be replaced. Plastic water bottles can be replaced with reusable water bottles made out of metal. Plastic animal enclosures can be replaced with metal or glass, plastic cutlery could easily be replaced with metal ones. To stop companies from using excess plastic, we should simply stop buying unnecessary plastic products, instead replacing them with healthier alternatives.. If there is no supply, there would be no demand.

Most corporations have big responsibilities for the climate crisis. Most big factories burn a lot of fossil fuel a day. Those corporations should use alternative energy, for example, wind turbines and solar panels, etc. However, they might not be willing to switch to that because it might require costly equipment to operate and it will take time for employees to learn how to operate them, and the corporation would not be able to know if this alternative energy is going to work out for them in the long run. One of the first ways to persuade them is by enforcing carbon tax. The next way is that if the corporation uses alternative energy, they will have their tax lowered. Another way to persuade them is that their consumers will tell the corporation that they will not buy their products if they don’t switch to alternative energy. Lastly, if the corporation does switch to using alternative energy, they will be a role model to other companies in the industry and also other industries.

You are absolutely right!
We must care about nature and alternative energy is our help, it's environmentally-friendly way to keep homes(for example) warm and at the same time protect nature.

While I do think that these companies have researched potential alternative methods to power their factories and facilities, they might not want to implement it because of how much it will cost to do this at every other facility. If these companies want to change how they run their facilities, the heads of these big companies have to come to a decision on how they will do this.

I agree ! A lot of the large factories burn a lot of fossil fuels everyday, all day. If they used solar panels or wind turbines more, not only would this help our climate change issue, but there also would not be as much gross stuff in the air.

I agree! I think it is very important for big corporations to be held responsible for the negative impact they have on the earth. If they want to continue to manufacture the way they are now, they should have to be more eco friendly in the way they produce. While they might not want to do this I believe it is crucial for them to if we want to stop the path the earth is on currently.

I agree with this completely. I live in California and when you drive through some of the towns with big industrial plants, all you can see is smoke which of course is also carbon.

I totally agree with you and that big corporations play a huge role in burning fossil fuels. I believe that we can find a modern solution for this like the examples you gave. I also think that the hardest problem would have to be convincing the corporations to change their ways.

I agree with your thought process of companies needing to make a change to the type of energy and their way of retrieving energy. But near the end of your comment when mentioning boycotting the companies as persuasion, this could be extremely difficult to accomplish as some companies make essentials that some people need to live. An example would be if pharmaceutical companies didn’t use clean energy, people with health problems couldn’t boycott those companies due to their health being at risk. Other than this I think your thought process for this problem is great.

I completely agree with you, and I love your Carbon Tax idea. I think that for how much of a problem corporations are when it comes to Co2 combustion corporations are the biggest perpetrators, yet governments trying to make a difference never really hold them accountable. Taxing their abuse on the planet would be a great idea to persuade them.

Over half of the world’s carbon emissions are from large companies. Many of these companies do little to minimize their carbon footprint, and if they do, it’s usually a front to save public image. Many companies only care about making as much value as they can without regard for the environment.
This doesn’t mean that reducing your own carbon footprint is a bad idea. You should do as much as you can, but in the end, people should know that environmental damage is mostly the fault of large companies.

We buy produce from these large companies almost daily. If we really wanted bigger companies to minimize their carbon footprint then we should buying from them until they do. They're big companies, they definitely have the money for it.

Corporate responsibility is a term that has come to characterize a family of professional disciplines intended to help a corporation stay competitive. charitable nature by engaging in or supporting volunteering or ethically-oriented practices. Example: Reducing carbon footprints. Improving labor policies.