Major Corporations Say Climate Change Is Bad For Business

Thanks to Obama’s 2014 State of the Union, we now know that climate change is a fact. Though what America is willing to do about it remains shrouded in mystery. The President’s boastful comments about the “success” of his “all of the above” energy plan leaves me dubious. But it’s good to know that while our national policies seem to contradict themselves, America’s corporations aren’t risking another cent on debate.

Some of the world’s biggest international enterprises recently announced that not only is climate change “a fact,” it’s also an economic threat. One that companies like Coca-Cola and Nike aren’t willing to mess around with.

“Increased droughts, more unpredictable variability, 100-year floods every two years,” Jeffrey Seabright, Coke’s vice president for environment and water resources, told the NY Times. “When we look at our most essential ingredients, we see those events as threats.”

Nike learned this lesson the hard way last year, whenfour of its factories in Thailand were shuttered due to flooding. According to the same NY Times article, the company is also concerned about the threat extreme weather events pose to cotton harvests and, as a result, cotton prices.

As a result,both companies now have policies that help mitigate the effects of climate change on their end product–including water and resource conservation programs and measures to reduce environmental pollution. And they’re not the only ones. Environmental Leader reports that, “Air France, BMW, Hewlett-Packard and Microsoft are also among the79 global companies leading inclimatechange performance.”

These decisions are just another example of how important it is to always frame resource conservation arguments in economical terms. We can protest and petition about the wrongness of corporate practices until we’re blue in the face. But connect issues of depletion and pollution directly to fiscal losses, and suddenly they’re all ears.

This reality makes me both happy and sad at the same time. I’m happy because it means that corporations are finally seeing that by adopting policies that protect the planet they’re also protecting their own interests. “You can’t do business on a dead planet,” the saying goes.

But I’m saddened by what this means about humanity–especially here in the developed world. It means that we’re losing our ability to assess value in terms of anything but dollars and cents. While they may encourage the right kind of behavior for a while, economic arguments only go so far. Corporations are incapable of appreciating the beauty, emotion and web of life. And for that reason, we must be ever vigilant, fighting to always put people and planet before profit.

Image via Thinkstock


Carrie-Anne Brown

thanks for sharing :)

Jennifer H.
Jennifer H.2 years ago

It is true... With the governments nowadays, money is the only thing of value. Nothing is sacred or beautiful on the land or see any more. It is just expendable or a hinderance needing to be destroyed. How long do they think humans can survive after they have destroyed and polluted and contaminated everything?

Andrew C.
Andrew C.2 years ago

It is a shame that money is the only thing that seems to get a response. Shows a lack of morals to me.

Janice Thompson
Janice Thompson2 years ago

Thanks to Obama’s 2014 State of the Union, we now know that climate change is a fact. We are trusting a man who hates his country. Who lies as if it were the only way to talk.

We knew it before (what was the other politician name) who invented the internet FOFLMAO told us about it.

What type of fools does he think we are?

I'd better stop now. I'm getting very tired....

David F.
David F.2 years ago

Continued: Now if convinced it's not natural water vapor and it is CO2 then is it a natural increase, or is it man made?
Back to the Ice core studies, they show an 800 year lag in increased levels of CO2 after the beginning of each Ice age. Additionally recent studies by NASA seem to prove that additional CO2 act as an insulator actually cooling the environment. See:
If that is true then man-made CO2 would help offset global warming caused by the sun.
But then you would have to believe that the current scientific measured change in the last 55 years has increased 85 parts per million. That means that the increase is .0085 of 1% additional CO2 in the atmosphere. When compared to the total nitrogen 78.08%, Oxygen 20.95% Argon .93% and CO2 .033%.
The CO2 content to this non-scientist laymen, whether good or bad, seems insignificant. Call me too skeptical to change our civilization to poverty for the assumptions of a biased media.

David F.
David F.2 years ago

Posted before, Sure 97% of the claimed scientist believe in climate change, Ice core samples prove that the earth has always been in a cycle of either cooling or warming. The question is, which is it? It's not that 97% believe climate change is manmade. There is a lot of false data from both sides, one side is the oil companies, people that have to use energy to survive, manufacturing corporations, farming, trucking, all transportation and the advocates for the poorest trying to stay warm.
On the other side there are the majority scientist that are fully financed by the government and there are corporations like Al-Gore and his carbon tax, Nuclear, Big wind, media that profit from stories, and the politicians hungry for more public dependence.
Once one is convinced it is warming, then why is it warming? Is it the giant Nuclear reactor in the sky on its routine cycle, or is it Green house gasses like water vapor or CO2 as the media claims?

Oleg Kobetz
Oleg Kobetz2 years ago

Thank you.

Luis Brantuas
Luís Brântuas2 years ago

Thanks for sharing!

Lynn C.
Lynn C.2 years ago

You've all have said it well. Thanks

Janis K.
Janis K.2 years ago

Thanks, interesting.