SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
david suzuki
Oil Should Stay in the Ground—And Get Out of Politics
Renewables are the only way forward and every smart investor knows continued use coal, oil, and gas will become increasingly costly and deadly.
Jul 08, 2023
With all the problems in the world, from massive inequality to the climate crisis, you’d think voluntary guidelines to improve corporate environmental and social practices would be a no-brainer. After all, addressing those critical issues can also boost a company’s bottom line.
But companies with business models based on activities that create greater inequalities and cause harm to the air, water, and soil, are threatened by ESG (environmental, social and governance) investor policies. ESG encourages investors to consider criteria such as environmental risk, pay equity and transparency in accounting.
That’s why Big Oil is fighting back. Much of the “anti-woke” rhetoric you hear from right-wing politicians and media is funded by fossil fuel interests.
Given what we know about the industry’s decades-long efforts to stall action on climate change, sowing doubt and confusion regarding the clear scientific evidence, it’s no surprise that the same people are putting enormous amounts of money and resources toward obstructing efforts to introduce greater corporate responsibility.
Because most moneyed people have diverse portfolios, the study found, losses would only make up about one per cent of their net wealth.
A report from U.S.-based Pleiades Strategy found that in 2023, fossil fuel money was behind 165 pieces of legislation introduced in 37 states “to weaponize government funds, contracts, and pensions to prevent companies and investors from considering commonplace risk factors in making responsible, risk-adjusted investment decisions.”
Most of the legislation, aimed at restricting the use of ESG investment criteria, was based on “model bills circulated by right-wing organizations that targeted diverse aspects of state financial regulation…”
Those organizations include four of the country’s most influential think tanks: the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Foundation for Government Accountability. All are affiliated with the State Policy Network, which receives funding from the fossil fuel billionaire Koch family, the Guardian reports.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation (which gets money from Koch-supported organizations, as well as ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron) and the American Petroleum Institute, an oil and gas lobbyist, have also been involved.
Some have worked to get laws passed to severely punish people protesting pipelines.
The Pleiades Strategy report found the groups had limited success, getting only 22 of the proposed 165 anti-ESG laws passed, thanks to opposition from business, labour and environmental advocates, but laws that did pass — even those that were watered down — could affect climate and other policies to protect people and the planet.
Report co-author Connor Gibson warned that lack of success isn’t likely to deter oil interests. “We think this is the latest iteration of climate denial and obstruction and delay,” he told the Guardian.
It’s astounding that people would put their short-term economic interests ahead of human health, well-being, and survival. But that’s what they are with all their influence over politicians, governments and media.
The fossil fuel economy is about more than just money, though. It’s also about consolidating power and wealth in a small number of people and companies, which creates greater inequality. This is far more difficult to do with energy from the sun and the wind compared to energy from coal, oil and gas.
Numerous studies show the clean energy transition would save enormous amounts of money in everything from health care to energy expenses. Continuing to use coal, oil and gas, meanwhile, will become increasingly costly and deadly.
Leaving fossil fuels behind won’t even be that hard on investors, according to a recent study published in Joule. It found that in high-income countries, the richest 10 per cent of the given country’s population would bear two-thirds of the investment losses from scaling back fossil fuel production, with the wealthiest one per cent taking half that hit. Because most moneyed people have diverse portfolios, the study found, losses would only make up about one per cent of their net wealth.
Researchers also found it would be cost-effective for governments to compensate those less well-off for any losses.
We have every reason to switch rapidly from fossil fuels to renewable sources — and to conserve energy and improve efficiency. We’re also increasingly finding that the corporate, political and media justifications for avoiding or delaying the necessary shift are brought to you by the industry itself, often clandestinely.
It’s time to get fossil fuel money out of politics and leave the oil in the ground.
Keep ReadingShow Less
There’s Still Time to Avoid Climate Catastrophe
If we fail to reach the goal of reducing emissions by 50 percent by 2030, it won’t be for lack of options
May 07, 2023
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions to keep the world from heating to catastrophic levels is entirely possible and would save money. Although emissions continue to rise, there’s still time to reverse course. Ways to slash them by more than half over the next seven years are readily available and cost-effective — and necessary to keep the global average temperature from rising more than 1.5 C.
The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report includes a chart that shows how. Compiled by the world’s top scientists using the most up-to-date research, it illustrates potential emissions reductions and costs of various methods.
At the top are wind and solar power, followed by energy efficiency, stopping deforestation and reducing methane emissions. Nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage and biofuels bring much poorer results for a lot more money.
Wind and solar together can cut eight billion tons of emissions annually — “equivalent to the combined emissions of the US and European Union today” and “at lower cost than just continuing with today’s electricity systems,” the Guardian reports.
Nuclear power and carbon capture and storage each deliver only 10 percent of the results of wind and solar at far higher costs. It’s telling that those less effective, more expensive pathways are the ones touted most often by government, industry and media people who are determined to keep fossil fuels burning or are resistant to power sources that offer greater energy independence.
Making buildings, industry, lighting and appliances more energy efficient could cut 4.5 billion tons of emissions a year by 2030 — and there’s no doubt that simply reducing energy consumption could add to that.
Because forests, wetlands and other green spaces sequester carbon, stopping deforestation could cut four billion tons a year by 2030, almost “double the fossil fuel emissions from the whole of Africa and South America today,” the Guardian reports.
Cutting methane emissions, especially those that leak from fossil fuel operations, could cut three billion tons. This is especially important because methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over the short term. It also shows that fracking for fossil gas and production of so-called “liquefied natural gas” are not viable solutions.
Other ways to lower emissions include switching to sustainable diets, such as eating less meat (1.7 billion tons), shifting toward public transit and active transportation (which has more potential than electric cars) and better agricultural methods.
We’re constantly told that quickly transitioning from coal, oil and gas is not realistic and that renewables aren’t ready to replace them, and that we need expensive, often unproven or dangerous methods like nuclear and carbon capture and storage. But those claims ignore the rapid pace at which renewable energy and storage technologies have been advancing — and dropping in price.
We could get even further than this research suggests by using less energy and fewer products that require energy to produce and transport. Shifting from a consumer-based system is especially important in light of the fact that even renewable energy is not impact-free. Mining for materials, replacing aging infrastructure and making space for installations means our ultimate goal should be to use less.
Likewise with electric cars. Although electric cars are far better than fossil-fuelled, all personal vehicles waste resources, require massive infrastructure and are not efficient at moving people around, regardless of how they’re powered.
But what this chart and mountains of other research show is that even with current technologies, methods and systems, cutting emissions and avoiding catastrophic consequences of climate disruption are entirely possible and affordable.
If we fail to reach the goal of reducing emissions by 50 percent by 2030, it won’t be for lack of options.
The problem isn’t a shortage of solutions, or exorbitant costs, or any benefits of fossil fuels over renewable energy; it’s a lack of political will, and to some extent, public support. This is driven to a large degree by the efforts of industry to protect its interests in raking in huge profits and perpetuating a system that mostly benefits a small and dwindling number of people at the expense of human health, well-being and survival.
Nature is speaking, and science is confirming that we have no time to lose. We can’t afford not to change.
With contributions from Senior Editor and Writer Ian Hanington
Keep ReadingShow Less
Humanity Can No Longer Tolerate Corporations That Exist Almost Entirely to Make Money
Society must make the necessary shift from a society that prioritizes wealth accumulation and economic growth to one that puts personal and societal well-being above profits.
Feb 13, 2023
In most countries, it’s left up to business owners, CEOs and boards to decide what their purpose is, and all too often the choice is ultimately based on greed.
In many countries — most notably the U.S. — corporations are considered “persons” under law, enjoying many of the same legal rights and responsibilities as “natural” persons. Judging by the way some corporations operate, you might conclude they’re not very good people.
Defining corporations as “persons” simply means they have a legal identity separate from shareholders and owners. But what is the purpose of a business or corporation? If you look at sectors such as the fossil fuel industry, you might be led to believe the primary aim is to enrich shareholders and CEOs, and maybe create some employment, regardless of the costs to society.
Generating profits and jobs is important in an economic system that relies on those principles, but they shouldn’t be the ultimate goals. The British Academy — the U.K.’s national institution for the humanities and social sciences — concluded from its research on the future of the corporation “that the purpose of business is to solve the problems of people and planet profitably, and not profit from causing problems.”
Generating profits and jobs is important in an economic system that relies on those principles, but they shouldn’t be the ultimate goals.
In most countries, it’s left up to business owners, CEOs and boards to decide what their purpose is, and all too often the choice is ultimately based on greed. That’s why many countries, including France and the U.K., have started incorporating corporate purpose into legal frameworks.
France amended its Civil Code in 2019 to include, “The company is managed in its corporate interest, while taking into account the social and environmental issues related to its activity.” It also introduced a measure, albeit not mandatory, for companies to articulate their reason for being in their “articles of association.”
Although many Canadian companies have vision and mission statements, these often amount to little more than public relations and don’t spell out any legal duties or requirements. The Canada Business Corporations Act doesn’t require a statement of corporate purpose. It’s time to change that, for the good of society and the corporations themselves.
Research shows companies with stated purposes that take into account their impacts on people and the planet often do better than those without. They attract loyal customers willing to advocate for and promote them. And the companies enjoy better reputations and are able to attract good employees who stay longer.
Research shows companies with stated purposes that take into account their impacts on people and the planet often do better than those without
A U.S. study found 60 per cent of Americans would “choose, switch, avoid or boycott a company based on its stand on social issues.” Another found that 66 per cent of people would switch from a product they normally buy to one from a purpose-driven company.
The real bottom line, though, is that the world can no longer afford to support or sustain companies that exist almost entirely to make money. Humanity is reeling under numerous crises brought on by consumer-driven economics based on the fallacy of endless growth in a finite world — from biodiversity loss to gross inequality to climate disruption.
A new David Suzuki Foundation report offers a way for Canada to correct course. “Bringing Corporate Purpose into the Mainstream: Directions for Canadian Law” recommends major changes to the Canada Business Corporations Act to ensure that large companies prioritize people and planet over profit. It’s part of a global movement to shift the focus of economic systems from money-driven consumerism to well-being.
The real bottom line, though, is that the world can no longer afford to support or sustain companies that exist almost entirely to make money
Among its recommendations, the report — by academics from the Faculty of Law at McGill University — calls for the act to be reformed to require corporate boards to have a statement of purpose, to extend the fiduciary duty of directors and officers to pursuing the purpose of the corporation in good faith with a view to its best interests, and to broaden those best interests to include impacts on the community in which it operates.
“Part of transforming to a society that values our needs, relationships and the natural world is ensuring corporations are held accountable for their actions. Establishing a corporate purpose is one tool to help enable that shift,” said Tara Campbell, David Suzuki Foundation well-being economies specialist.
These reforms won’t transform society by themselves, and would only apply to large corporations that operate under the act, but they’re an important step in the necessary shift from a society that prioritizes wealth accumulation and economic growth to one that puts personal and societal well-being above the pursuit of profit.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular