Abacus: The Irony Of A Metal Straw
lucianojoaquim
In 2019, the United Nations General Assembly met and announced that the world had just 11 more years to correct greenhouse gas emissions before "irreversible damage" is done to our planet. In response, nations around the globe have committed to carbon neutrality within the next decade. Many corporations have seemingly gotten on board too, with top firms looking to invest in sustainability in order to prepare capital for the future and meet the demands of socially conscious consumers. In the race to lower the world's carbon footprint, benefits and burdens have to be dished out, shaping the decision-making process for individuals, firms, and nations in the future. While some of the largest corporations in the United States have been quick to make promises about sustainability initiatives, it is too easily forgotten how these issues began.
Companies everywhere, household names like Google and Microsoft (along with massive financial players such as BlackRock), have committed to some sort of carbon-neutral targets. Almost 30% of Fortune 500 companies are involved in some kind of climate-based initiative. FedEx, for example, aims to have a fully electric fleet for delivery, becoming carbon-neutral by 2050. Beyond this, the existential threat of climate change has caused a transition in the economy where those firms who refuse to adapt to green practices are sure to be left in the dust. Environmental disasters, such as the 2019 California wildfires, have caused nearly 25.4 billion in damage already. From the market and from consumers, who are more socially conscious than ever, this combination of incentives is creating a rush of corporations looking to make pledges and work towards sustainability. While the political climate and drive to stay on the cutting edge are certainly real incentives, questions remain regarding how seriously these practices will be taken and how firms that do not comply with their targets will be held accountable.
Big corporations' decision to both acknowledge and now pledge to fight climate change is undoubtedly an important step. When nearly 70% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions can be connected back to just 100 fossil fuel producers, the financial sector's decision to cut down on the investment in and use of fossil fuels are initiatives that have the chance to make a real impact. That said, firms, in making these promises, are asking consumers, shareholders, and the world at large to take their words as law. A groundbreaking investigation by Inside Climate News in 2015 let the world know that Exxon knew about climate change and the greenhouse gas emissions their fuels produced. Exxon has proven that public welfare will be put aside for-profit and sustained growth, what makes these top companies different? This time around, there are real financial incentives for corporations to get ahead of the game in their investments in green capital and sustainability; The carbon disclosure project, a non-profit analyzing company financial disclosures, calculated that 215 of the world’s largest 500 companies faced a combined $1 Trillion in costs related to climate change in the coming decades. All the while, these firms operate seemingly unregulated.
While shareholders are sure to make many of these firms hurt if they fail to reach their carbon targets, without government action to burden the worst carbon-producing offenders, these targets' legitimacy and effectiveness come into question. Even the federal government dropped out of its own commitments to sustainability, leaving the Paris climate agreement in 2017, but it has failed to implement any strict legislation regulating carbon emissions in the private sector. Former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin was famously unwilling to propose carbon taxes. This is incredibly disheartening considering that nearly 25 of the nation's largest corporations paid 0 dollars in federal tax last year. It seems an essential element of the political economy, the distribution of burdens, or the correction of the market failure existing when corporate emissions create third party costs for the world (in terms of mortality or more frequent natural disasters), have been overlooked by government officials. This lack of comprehensive government action is also noteworthy when confronting the reality that for all the progress that has been made, only a quarter of the world's largest corporations have some kind of climate commitment. Corporations, in the majority, are still unwilling to make change a reality. In some capacity, it is this inaction by the government that has forced corporate commitments to fill the gaps. But are these commitments not made by their own standards of the progress that needs to be made, without the fear of tangible consequences for inaction. Our climate is still burdened by the promises of profit non-renewable resources offer compared to expensive eco-friendly capital.
Much of the discourse surrounding climate action focuses on individual action rather than the collective. Recycling, cutting water use, eliminating single-use plastics, and integrating solar power are all popular suggestions for how individuals can fight against climate change. Where much activism is pointed towards individual responsibility, there is a notable silence regarding the role of corporations and inaction to combat the climate crisis. Nowhere is this more evident than the ironic rise of zero-waste products. Metal straws, sturdy water bottles, even upscale re-washable lunchboxes have been seen as steps that everyday people need to take to make a difference. While there certainly is a moral obligation to minimize waste in the face of such a global threat, there is an irony to the climate solution being so tied to consumerism. States like California have gone far as to ban plastic straws, but comprehensive federal carbon taxes (or at least nationwide emissions targets) are still nowhere to be found. It is essential that we all do our part to change our habits, vote with our wallets, and minimize our carbon footprint. That said, maybe we should be holding corporations to the same standard. While many firms have been more than willing to make promises about the future, how will they be held accountable for the damage already done?
