Report Faults Big Companies on Climate
Article Here
Barnaby Feder’s article in the New York Times, like the previous article, was also not peer reviewed, but it too was based almost entirely on logos – fact and interpretation. What it lacks in recency, it makes up for in being incredibly relevant. The article regards a checklist of 14 environmentally friendly activities that companies should participate in in order to reduce their contribution to climate change.
The fact that only two of the unnamed amounts of companies evaluated managed to participate in all 14 items on the list goes to show how little the majority of large corporations even care about the climate. The fact that some of the larger companies “reported just four of the practices the report identified as prudent” (Feder) is proof that money matters more than the environment when it comes to big business. With a society that’s only increasingly capitalistic, this article serves as proof that companies have not and will not willingly and actively help the environment; or at the very least not hinder it. It has been, and will continue to be more effective in terms of money to use fossil fuels, dump refuse, and regard the environment as something that simply exists around a business, rather than something that relates to it in any way. So, in this way, the notion that a business will not willingly care for the environment is timeless.
In terms of the overarching question of this blog, this article goes hand-in-hand with the Goldenberg article and my personal thoughts on the matter: companies will continue to exploit the environment on a massive scale for their benefit until responsibility is forced upon them. While there are shortcomings in believing that forcing businesses to treat the environment correctly is some simple task, this is the basest and broadest requirement to ask of big businesses that abuse the environment in the name of money.