by Maddie Wenzlick
It’s not far-fetched to say that the idea of being an environmentalist often has many of the same negative connotations as the idea of being a hippie: both are thought of as having passion without practicality, advocating extremism outside the bounds of regular society, and promoting trends based in idealism rather than science.
For this reason there is at present a tension between supporters of the free market and those who consider themselves environmentalists. Recently the Paris Agreements have illustrated an acknowledgement by the majority of the world’s political powers of the real shifts in the global climate and represent a dedication, at least in words, to making changes in the practices that incur the worst damages to the planet. However, the targets posed in Paris are nebulous in practice, as those who the burden to implement the changes have an unclear path in figuring out how to achieve them.
All of these private entities are still focused on the bottom line. Some believe that alterations to their business models due to environmental concerns are more costly than necessary, and will be bad for business. There is not a great enough acknowledgement, however, of the real damages to a company’s proceedings that will occur due solely to changes in climate. Projections are difficult to obtain with high degrees of accuracy, but even ball-park figures can suffice to paint a picture of the potentially damagingly high costs.
There is an opportunity here for environmentalists to compose their arguments in a language that private corporations understand. In order to lend credibility to the “tree hugger” mentality, allegations must be grounded in scientific facts and further must be explicit in terms of real, applicable costs.
For example, the practical costs of climate change must be detailed with regards to the practices of entities who have the ability to make changes, in order to allow each entity to robustly compare their future economic options. These reports should include the costs related to changing rainfall patterns, temperature fluctuations, and resource availability, which will have direct impacts on many manufacturing and distribution processes. Those companies for whom this dialogue is relevant include oil and gas companies, car manufacturers, and other large industrial manufacturers. The changes must be personal and tailored to regions directly applicable to these companies. So far, most studies have only considered a broader scale where personal implication can be avoided.
It will be only by putting the changes in climate in monetary terms that there will be some hope of change in practice. Specifically, this means to detail the costs of climate change that have direct implications for the bottom line of industrial companies. In this way, environmentalists can improve the dialogue between themselves and the businesses who are at odds with them. By grounding allegations and projections in science and describing the real costs, environmentalists can prove themselves to have a vision on par with the workings of the rest of society and can hope to gain the partnership of business leaders and politicians around the world.
For reference, an article was published recently in the Wall Street Journal concerning the doubts of Chevron’s CEO regarding the Paris agreements and the implications of climate change for his company: http://www.wsj.com/articles/chevron-boss-climate-change-could-help-business-1464132869
Photo credit: http://greeningforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/shutterstock_101022454.jpg
Collaboration by Maddie Wenzlick
Nico 