Corporate Accountability For Environmental Pollution: Who Pays The Price?

Large corporations have long been at the centre of debates surrounding environmental pollution. With their vast industrial operations and profit-driven motives, these entities are often implicated in a range of polluting activities, from toxic waste dumping to greenhouse gas emissions. Their scale and influence on global markets can lead to detrimental effects on the environment, and their pursuit of profit has often come at the cost of ecological degradation and public health crises. This issue has sparked widespread concern, with activists, scientists, and communities demanding accountability and calling for stricter regulations to curb corporate pollution. The following discussion delves into the various ways in which large corporations contribute to pollution and explores potential solutions to mitigate their environmental impact.

Fossil fuel companies' historical GHG emissions

Large corporations, particularly those in the fossil fuel industry, have been responsible for a significant portion of global pollution. Fossil fuel companies, in particular, have contributed immensely to historical greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, causing climate change and global warming.

A 2017 report by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) revealed that just 100 companies, mostly fossil fuel producers, were responsible for 71% of global GHG emissions since 1988. This small group of corporations has had an immensely detrimental impact on the planet, with their emissions contributing significantly to climate change. ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron are among the highest emitting investor-owned companies. If fossil fuel extraction and consumption continue at the same rate, global temperatures are projected to rise by 4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, leading to catastrophic consequences, including species extinction and global food scarcity.

The primary source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is fossil fuel use, with the transportation sector being the largest contributor, as over 94% of the fuel used in this sector is petroleum-based. Fossil fuel combustion for electricity production and industrial energy generation are also significant sources of CO2. Methane (CH4) emissions are largely associated with agricultural activities, waste management, and energy production, while nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions primarily come from agricultural practices and chemical production, in addition to fossil fuel combustion.

While some fossil fuel companies have started to invest in renewable energy and carbon capture technologies, the pace and scale of their efforts are often criticized as insufficient. The continued reliance on fossil fuels and the pursuit of short-term profitability over sustainable practices have led to accusations of these companies prioritizing economic gains over environmental responsibility.

Addressing climate change effectively requires a shift in consumption patterns and a transition to sustainable energy sources. While individual actions are important, the responsibility for implementing planetary-scale reforms lies with governments and powerful industries, who must be held accountable for their actions and the impact they have on the planet.

Misinformation and lobbying against climate change

Large corporations have played a significant role in contributing to climate change, with a small number of companies responsible for a large proportion of global emissions. Fossil fuel companies, in particular, have been accused of spreading misinformation and lobbying against climate policy to protect their interests.

Fossil fuel companies have been accused of spreading misinformation and lobbying against climate change policies for decades. In 2021, executives from major oil companies, including Shell, Chevron, BP, and ExxonMobil, were questioned by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform for their role in spreading misinformation. These companies have been accused of aggressively lobbying against climate policies and spending large sums on advertising. For example, in the days leading up to the hearing, ExxonMobil spent $565,000 on Facebook ads. Fossil fuel companies also sent more lobbyists to the COP26 UN climate summit than any single country, underscoring their influence on policy-making.

The Koch brothers, for instance, have given $145 million to climate change-denying think tanks, which have been described as "misinformation factories." These think tanks, along with conservative groups funded by fossil fuel companies, have effectively spread doubt and slowed climate action. This strategy has been compared to the tactics used by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to cast doubt on the harmful effects of smoking.

In recent years, a new breed of climate denial has emerged, backed by large advertising budgets. Instead of outright denying climate change, influencers and online shows now focus on misleading messages such as "Climate solutions don't work" or "Climate change has some benefits." Climate skeptic posts have seen significant growth on social media platforms, with claims that climate change is an instrument of control gaining traction. The Trump administration has also been criticized for attacking climate science and issuing executive orders that threaten climate progress.

Fighting misinformation is crucial to addressing climate change. Experts suggest that talking to friends and family about the issue can help spread accurate information and build consensus. It is important to engage in conversations, not confrontations, and to encourage people to articulate their arguments and think critically about the logic and assumptions underlying their beliefs.

While some large corporations are taking steps towards sustainability, such as investing in renewables and carbon capture, the pace and scale of change are often criticized as insufficient. As a result, governments and investors have a crucial role in holding these corporations accountable and compelling them to act more sustainably.

Industrial waste and sewage in water bodies

Industrial waste and sewage released into water bodies have emerged as one of the most significant contributors to water pollution, with severe consequences for both the environment and human health. This issue arises from the disposal of untreated or partially treated wastewater from various industrial processes into nearby lakes, rivers, and coastal areas.

Industrial waste encompasses a broad range of materials rendered useless during manufacturing, such as dirt, gravel, scrap metal, oil, solvents, chemicals, and even vegetable matter from restaurants. This waste can be solid, semi-solid, or liquid and is often classified as either hazardous or non-hazardous. Hazardous waste includes substances like ammonia, solvents, and petroleum, which are highly detrimental to the environment. Notably, the food products industry and the processing of industrial chemicals are significant sources of toxic wastes and organic pollutants.

The discharge of industrial wastewater containing nutrients like nitrates and phosphates often leads to eutrophication, resulting in the death of aquatic life in affected water bodies. Additionally, thermal pollution, which involves releasing water at elevated temperatures after industrial cooling processes, can decrease oxygen levels, causing fish mortality and altering the food chain composition.

The impact of industrial waste on water pollution is not limited to aquatic ecosystems. Drinking water sources and irrigation water used for farming can also be contaminated, posing risks to human health. Moreover, the introduction of new products, such as computers, drugs, plastics, and textiles, has led to the release of toxic chemicals, including suspected carcinogens like PCE (perchloroethylene), into water supplies.

To address this issue, legislation such as the 1972 Clean Water Act in the United States was enacted to prohibit uncontrolled discharges of industrial waste and municipal sewage into water bodies. This act mandated the development of national standards for industrial facilities and municipal sewage treatment plants. Similarly, the EU has implemented a 'Zero Pollution Action Plan' to combat water pollution. Regular assessments of environmental impact and effective water monitoring are crucial to ensure the sustainable management of industrial waste and prevent further pollution of water bodies.

Fashion industry's unsustainable fast fashion

Large corporations are responsible for a significant proportion of global emissions and environmental degradation. A report by the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) revealed that just 100 companies out of hundreds of thousands worldwide have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions since 1998. Fossil fuel producers, including ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron, are among the highest emitters, contributing significantly to climate change.

Now, let's focus on the fashion industry's unsustainable fast fashion practices:

The fashion industry, particularly the fast-fashion sector, has revolutionized the way people consume and perceive clothing, but it has come at a significant environmental and human cost. Fast fashion is characterized by overproduction and overconsumption, delivering garments following the latest trends at an unprecedented pace. This business model relies on the rapid exploitation of resources and labor, leading to severe environmental consequences.

The environmental impact of fast fashion includes the depletion of non-renewable sources, massive water and energy consumption, and the emission of greenhouse gases. It is the second-largest consumer industry of water, with approximately 700 gallons required to produce one cotton shirt and 2,000 gallons for a pair of jeans. The water used in the dyeing process is often dumped into ditches, streams, or rivers, polluting these water sources. Textile dyeing is the world's second-largest water polluter, and the fashion industry is responsible for 10% of global carbon emissions.

Additionally, the poor quality of fast fashion contributes to the limited lifespan of garments, which often end up in landfills or are incinerated, leading to land and air pollution. Cheap, plastic-based materials shed microfibres, contributing to the growing presence of microplastics in marine environments. The fashion industry's use of synthetic fibres like polyester, nylon, and acrylic, which take hundreds of years to biodegrade, further exacerbates this issue.

The globalization of fashion supply chains has also shifted the bulk of fabric production and apparel manufacturing to developing countries, where environmental regulations may be lenient or non-existent. This has resulted in resource consumption, pollution, and waste occurring in these regions, away from the Western countries where the end products are consumed.

To promote sustainability and reduce the environmental impact, policymakers and companies must work together. A more circular economy, increased supply chain transparency, and the proposed 'fast fashion tax' are steps towards mitigating the harmful effects of fast fashion on the planet.

Greenwashing and advertising cleaner energy

Large corporations are responsible for a significant portion of global emissions, with just 100 companies being responsible for 71% of global GHG emissions since 1988. Despite this, many corporations are engaging in greenwashing, which is the process of conveying a false impression of how environmentally sound their products and practices are. This involves rebranding, renaming, and repackaging products to make them seem more natural or eco-friendly. For example, Shell, one of the world's biggest carbon emitters, launched a marketing campaign to promote its clean energy business, including misleading claims about its involvement in providing clean energy and EV charging stations.

Greenwashing is deceitful and unethical as it misleads investors and consumers who are seeking environmentally friendly products. It can also be costly for consumers, as green products are often sold at a premium. If greenwashing is revealed, it can seriously damage a company's reputation.

To avoid greenwashing, consumers should be aware of common tactics and spend wisely by researching and choosing products from companies committed to cutting emissions and waste. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) offers guidelines to help consumers differentiate real green products from greenwashed ones, including requiring packaging and advertising to explain green claims in plain language and close proximity to the claim.

While some corporations are genuinely investing in renewable energy and carbon capture projects, many are engaging in greenwashing to capitalize on the growing demand for environmentally sound products. This undermines credible efforts to reduce emissions and delays concrete action on the climate crisis.

To effectively tackle climate change, there needs to be a focus on large-scale planetary reforms implemented by governments, rather than solely relying on individual actions or consumption patterns.

Frequently asked questions