WHAT IS CORPORATE AND PERSONAL SUSTAINABILITY?
It is no secret that climate change has become undeniable yet deeply politicized within our national and international community. From fires to floods, the effects are rapidly intensifying, leaving many with the questions: who is to blame and how do we stop this? This simple question has moved to the forefront of global debate, leading many, with various modes of communication and positions of power to publically weigh in, and take action (or not). Corporate sustainability is the business practice where long-term value is created through responsible social, economic, and environmental strategies. Similarly, Personal Sustainability is the individual effort to be environmentally conscious of one's everyday choices in order to reduce waste. While both are important, the new sustainability movement, partially run by large, polluting companies, intentionally distracts from corporate pollution by creating climate change funds and promoting personal sustainability.
HOW DOES PERSONAL BLAME DISTRACT FROM CORPORATE ACTIONS?
Although a fictional children's movie, the earth's reality as seen in the 2008 film Wall-E is filled with details that are reminiscent of our current national politics and our future climate should nothing change. Within the first thirty seconds of this clip, Wall-E runs over a discarded newspaper titled "Too Much Trash!!! Earth Covered-BNI CEO Declares Global Emergency" with a photo of the CEO of this world's monopolizing company, Buy N Large. First and foremost, it is established that the earth has entered an unprecedented climate catastrophe and that the leader of this state, the person able to declare national emergencies, is not a political figure, but a wealthy CEO. Interestingly enough, the Buy N Large CEO is doing a double peace sign eerily similar to the infamous former president Richard Nixon, implying his dishonesty from the start. Wall-E then speeds by a group of electronic billboards that audibly say "Too much garbage in your face? There is plenty of space out in space. BNL starliners leaving each day- we’ll clean up the mess while you're away." Within two minutes of the clip, a clear backstory has been established-a monopolizing company that polluted the earth beyond recognition, so much so that the entire human race has to leave the planet until it is fixed by robots like Wall-E. Although a far-fetched idea off the bat, this concept becomes more and more realistic the more you look at our current political climate.
Beyond the clear messages within Wall-E, it is crucial to understand this film's target audience. Unlike the other texts previously presented, Wall-E is aimed at children and their parents, or the people who will be impacted the most and those who can vote for climate policies that will affect their children's future. Because of films like Wall-E, Gen Z grew up with an active awareness of the climate crisis that other generations did not have, and has thus led to conversations about global warming from a young age.
However, all of this being said, Wall-e is still a children's movie and is easily dismissed because it is fictional, despite its clear real-world messages. How does the disastrous consequences of monopolies and lack of climate action translate to our experiences?
This clip from a live BBC news report from August 9th, 2021 summarizes the findings of the newly published (at the time) report by 234 authors from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Public news broadcasts such as this one are crucial in communicating dense scientific data and reports to the public in a digestible way for the general public. The report, although objective and informative, has an underlying intention of instilling fear and the need to take action in the viewers. This is done through descriptions of terrifying outcomes of global warming and intense visuals of natural disaster damage across the world. From the start, it is immediately clear from the stern tone and body language of the main reporter that this is an issue to be taken seriously. To further convey this sense of seriousness, and create a sense of credibility, multiple disguised guests, including the UK minister and climate scientists such as Valerie Masson-Delmotte, are quoted or invited on air to explain the data presented.
Although this news clip does not place specific blame on corporations or individuals, this source provides a baseline education level on the dense scientific findings of this report while also repeatedly calling government officials and policy-makers to action. In turn, the public view is more tuned into the debate about corporate environmental regulations while also providing spaces for reflection on personal sustainability.
After watching a terrifying news clip (as shown up above), many may be inclined to reevaluate their carbon footprint and make changes to actively be more sustainable. For many young people, this means turning to the internet, especially social media. Shown above is an example of Tiktok, one of the highest viewed social media platforms of our time, listing ways for students to be more sustainable in their academic lives. The use of background music, quick captions, and fast paces shots are very typical of a successful Tiktok, as they are designed to entertain and keep the viewer's attention rather than thoroughly explain the points made. Despite its snappy nature, this is a very effective form of normalizing personal sustainability because the viewer has to put little to no effort to consume it. Furthermore, one can very easily click the poster's profile or one of the sustainable hashtags to learn more information through the Tiktok app itself.
However, many tiktoks meant to encourage sustainable practices are actually just presenting items that the viewer could purchase rather than explaining lifestyle changes they can make without spending more money. Because of this mindset, we have seen a phenomenon called greenwashing, where companies (often misleadingly) advertise their products as environmentally friendly to increase sales, allowing corporations to profit from the personal sustainability narrative. Despite the clear need for affordable and sustainable products, this shopping-to-be-sustainable mindset actually feeds into corporate wealth, and in many cases, does more harm than good.
Although education and advocating for personal sustainability are crucial to building a green future, personal sustainability alone is simply not enough to combat the severity of our current climate crisis.
This is a re-tweet of an Instagram post by Jeff Bezos, the founder and former president/chairman of Amazon, about his new $10 million pledge to climate change research and relief. By using two forms of social media (Twitter and Instagram), Bezos can reach a larger audience rather quickly, as seen with the forty thousand likes and counting on the initial Instagram post. By using clear earth imagery, listing sixteen benefitting nonprofits, and a genuine (sounding) caption, it appears that Bezos truly has taken a turn towards sustainable practices and that this in turn might lead to corporate sustainability within Amazon. However, this is not always the case, and social media campaigns such as this one allow people and companies in power to lead the narrative around sustainability within their company, even if it is grossly misleading.
Genuine corporate sustainability should be celebrated, however, unfortunately, many campaigns and funds such as this one are often used as a public distraction from extreme pollution by these same companies.
In stark contrast to the tweet shown before, The Verge's Justine Calma argues that, despite Amazon's best PR efforts, the scientific data does not support the idea that Amazon causes anything other than environmental harm. By using a direct article title and a pollution-like tinted photo of an Amazon truck, the reader's attention is more likely to be captured. Throughout the article, certain quotes are bolded and preceded by a neon green marker, bringing the reader's attention to these main claims while simultaneously acting as key points or takeaways. Although the reader might not remember that Amazon generated exactly 71.54 metric tons of carbon dioxide last year, they are likely to remember that "this is the second year in a row that Amazon’s climate pollution has grown by double digits." The article's length also furthers its ability to reach a larger audience and maintain the audience's attention. Similar to a Tiktok video or tweet, Calma's concision effectively argues against Amazon's deceitful facade of sustainability without overwhelming the reader with paragraphs of dense statistics and scientific findings.
Unfortunately, Amazon is not the only company following this trend. Other larger companies, such as Exxon Mobil and Coca-Cola all have large monopolies in their respective industries and continue to pollute with little acknowledgment of their actions. This issue brings up the question; why haven't there been any legal consequences?
Unlike The Verge article, this peer-reviewed journal is not a direct or easy read. Extensive legal terminology is used throughout the paper, and this would be a difficult read with no prior knowledge of the American legal system. However, the journal is very clearly laid out, shifting from precedent trials to ongoing ones, and finally to the legal future of climate accountability. Each section is separated and clearly labeled, and over half of the legal terms used are defined throughout the text. Although perhaps still dense to read, these choices demonstrate a clear effort from the authors to make this journal, and therefore the important information presented within it, accessible to more of the general public.
Despite proven and clear scientific evidence that the actions of large fossil fuel companies have partially caused our climate crisis, this article outlines why it is nearly impossible to hold them legally and financially accountable. Corporations defend themselves within these trials, claiming it is unfair to be held financially accountable as some of the responsibility belongs to the consumers, thus circling back to the personal versus corporate sustainability debate.
SO, WHAT CAN YOU DO?
With everything presented above, it is easy to feel hopeless. If being personally sustainable is not enough, then why even try? Making a difference is not an individual task for sure, however making good choices is impactful and important, even if it is alone not enough to stop the progression of climate change. So what should you do?
First of all, vote, and encourage those around you to do the same! Stay informed on climate policy on a local, national, and global level, and vote for policies that hold government agencies and corporations accountable for their carbon footprint. Attend protests, remain active in your community and advocate for the changes you see we need to make.
Second of all, make environmentally conscious lifestyle choices. And not by making a large group of purchases, but by making small lifestyle changes. Turn the lights off when you are not in a room. Only make the food you and your household can eat. Bring your own bags to the grocery store instead of using plastic ones. Reuse items before throwing them away. Although small, creating a sustainable household environment is a great way you can make a difference within your own home.
And finally, be conscious when you are making new purchases. Support local supermarkets instead of large chains if you have that option. If you are replacing old household items, opt for reusable sustainable alternatives that fit into your lifestyle. Try thrifting over harmful fast fashion brands. And yes, although small, it is also unhelpful to diminish the value of trying to make sustainable choices. Creating large-scale change starts with being environmentally conscious members of our local, national, and global communities!
References
Bezos, Jeff. Bezos Earth Fund. Instagram. 2020.
Bruce, Fiona. Climate change IPCC report is 'code red for humanity', UN scientists say - BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. Youtube. 2021.
Burger, Michael. Wentz, Jessica. Holding fossil fuel companies accountable for their contribution to climate change: Where does the law stand?, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 2018, 74:6, 397-403.
Calma, Justine. Amazon's climate pollution is getting way worse: Don't be fooled by the PR. Science/Environment/Tech. The Verge. 2022.
Resooma. How to be a Sustainable Student. Tiktok. 2022.
Stanton, Andrew et al.. 2008. WALL-E. Burbank, Calif., Walt Disney Home Entertainment. Andrew, Stanton et al., WALL-E.