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.