Thank you, Lloyd. A most cogent and urgent message. We don't need more artificial intelligence. We need more human intelligence, which is in increasingly short supply.
Lloyd, Historically, consumer boycotting hasn't moved the needle. I'm not sure I would even consider it collective action. The strongest, and perhaps ONLY, leverage we have against corporations is the collective threat of withholding labor. As Matt Huber tells his students, "Want to fight climate change? Join a union!"
Actually, I'd disagree about the needle able to be moved. Lately, Robby Starbuck's activism (and use of social media), got a rather large number of big corporations to scale back their DEI activities or ditch them completely. He spoke/messaged to their consumers and they responded, letting those companies know of their ire. Ask Tractor Supply, Harley-Davidson, Molsen, Caterpillar, and John Deere as a few examples.
Before that, Target became just that because of their standings - they lost a few billion in market cap as their share prices went down when conservatives stopped shopping their stores.
A few years ago, Maine enacted an Extended Producer Responsibility law. It will require manufacturers to either make packaging easily recyclable or they'll pay communities for the cost of disposal of unrecyclable packaging. The state is working through the rule making process now. We'll see how it works, but it seems like a good idea. A few other states are enacting similar laws.
This is just a cost-of-business item that will be passed onto consumers. It's like when politicians say that they are going to hike taxes on corporations they don't like. No, they don't really end up, eventually, pay those higher taxes. Instead, it gets wrapped up into the price point of what is being sold.
And then it comes out WHO is really paying that artificially raised business cost? Ayup, us, the consumer.
Full disclosure: yes, elasticity of demand does play a role in what I just said.
Having worked for ten years at various companies in manufacturing, I know that a lot of this move away from sustainability is just companies being honest and not bothering with the greenwashing that they have been putting on display for the past few years.
And yes, the election of Trump has given these folks permission to drop sustainability. I think, as it is with Zuckerberg and Besos, that some of it is just going along with the political winds and avoiding being the target of the incoming administration.
"...is just companies being honest and not bothering with the greenwashing that they have been putting on display for the past few years."
I agree. It took away from their main fiduciary duties of making profits for their owners/shareholders.
Look, taking waste out of supply chains is a good thing - it adds to the bottom line. The backlash is that so much of the Sustainability was also tightly coupled with DEI efforts that finally ran off the rails because it subtracted / detracted from companies' main missions.
Vindaloo, Indeed, the power and wealth of the global fossil fuel, petrochemical, and plastics interests arrayed against us is staggering. Still, they cannot operate without the willing participation of workers. Points of vulnerability exist all along the production and distribution circuits. Witness the impact of a recent threatened rail strike.
Granted, effective direct action requires far more extensive and militant unionization than exists at present. Also, you are correct in suggesting that global capital is able to play workers off each other in a race to the bottom. That is why, if we are to see a resurgence of labor organizing in the 21stC that can affect climate policy, it will need to be international.
Those that benefit the most from business as usual are always the ones pushing back against environmental responsibility all the while convincing those who lose the most that the cause will cure you and the medicine will kill you.
Liked the comment about getting out of the house! Made it to work by bike even at -13. We've definitely wimped out as a species when it comes to weather - we focus on needing 'protection' all the time instead of adapting. This has huge economic and environmental implications.
On the topic of corporates I'll be putting something together on how sustainability leaders tend to get punted by the same shareholders who trumpet ESG - its an interesting dynamic to say the least!
It would be good to implement the seventh generation principle which is based on making decisions now that will benefit our descendants seven generations from now. Anything else is fatally short-sighted.
>> or may not ever be realized as we could be wiped out by a global pandemic, asteroid impact, CME eruption that destroys all modern infrastructure running on a circuit board, warfare, or simply some unknown unknown yet to be as well known as these others?
Or, on the warlike side, Putin, the ChiComs, the mullahs, or the NorKo Nutjob decide to test their nukes - somewhere other than on their own territories.
To me, that's more of an existential threat (especially the last two) than anything else.
Oh, I forgot - and SMOD. You forgot multiple volcanoes, VB...shame on you for your lack of foresight and doomscaring (heh!).
I agree - 7 generations is 175 years. What would someone have been doing in 1849 that would cataclysmically affect us this far in the "future"? And SusanA, what could VB do now that would affect someone in 2200?
I prefer to enjoy the remaining life I have and not sit around being despondent.
It shouldn’t be under the same umbrella because it’s a completely different discipline. The first two listed are communications.
Sustainability measures typically include supply chains, resource management, engineering and product development. The communications people just write the press release about the initiatives.
Thank you, Lloyd. A most cogent and urgent message. We don't need more artificial intelligence. We need more human intelligence, which is in increasingly short supply.
The difference between "greenwash" and "greenlash" was always just one letter ….
Lloyd, Historically, consumer boycotting hasn't moved the needle. I'm not sure I would even consider it collective action. The strongest, and perhaps ONLY, leverage we have against corporations is the collective threat of withholding labor. As Matt Huber tells his students, "Want to fight climate change? Join a union!"
Actually, I'd disagree about the needle able to be moved. Lately, Robby Starbuck's activism (and use of social media), got a rather large number of big corporations to scale back their DEI activities or ditch them completely. He spoke/messaged to their consumers and they responded, letting those companies know of their ire. Ask Tractor Supply, Harley-Davidson, Molsen, Caterpillar, and John Deere as a few examples.
Before that, Target became just that because of their standings - they lost a few billion in market cap as their share prices went down when conservatives stopped shopping their stores.
So, it can work - even if just for a while.
A few years ago, Maine enacted an Extended Producer Responsibility law. It will require manufacturers to either make packaging easily recyclable or they'll pay communities for the cost of disposal of unrecyclable packaging. The state is working through the rule making process now. We'll see how it works, but it seems like a good idea. A few other states are enacting similar laws.
This is just a cost-of-business item that will be passed onto consumers. It's like when politicians say that they are going to hike taxes on corporations they don't like. No, they don't really end up, eventually, pay those higher taxes. Instead, it gets wrapped up into the price point of what is being sold.
And then it comes out WHO is really paying that artificially raised business cost? Ayup, us, the consumer.
Full disclosure: yes, elasticity of demand does play a role in what I just said.
Having worked for ten years at various companies in manufacturing, I know that a lot of this move away from sustainability is just companies being honest and not bothering with the greenwashing that they have been putting on display for the past few years.
And yes, the election of Trump has given these folks permission to drop sustainability. I think, as it is with Zuckerberg and Besos, that some of it is just going along with the political winds and avoiding being the target of the incoming administration.
"...is just companies being honest and not bothering with the greenwashing that they have been putting on display for the past few years."
I agree. It took away from their main fiduciary duties of making profits for their owners/shareholders.
Look, taking waste out of supply chains is a good thing - it adds to the bottom line. The backlash is that so much of the Sustainability was also tightly coupled with DEI efforts that finally ran off the rails because it subtracted / detracted from companies' main missions.
Forgot to add to the latter point - a "Preference Cascade".
Vindaloo, Indeed, the power and wealth of the global fossil fuel, petrochemical, and plastics interests arrayed against us is staggering. Still, they cannot operate without the willing participation of workers. Points of vulnerability exist all along the production and distribution circuits. Witness the impact of a recent threatened rail strike.
Granted, effective direct action requires far more extensive and militant unionization than exists at present. Also, you are correct in suggesting that global capital is able to play workers off each other in a race to the bottom. That is why, if we are to see a resurgence of labor organizing in the 21stC that can affect climate policy, it will need to be international.
Those that benefit the most from business as usual are always the ones pushing back against environmental responsibility all the while convincing those who lose the most that the cause will cure you and the medicine will kill you.
It is as VB, Bob, Coj1, and I have foretold.
Liked the comment about getting out of the house! Made it to work by bike even at -13. We've definitely wimped out as a species when it comes to weather - we focus on needing 'protection' all the time instead of adapting. This has huge economic and environmental implications.
On the topic of corporates I'll be putting something together on how sustainability leaders tend to get punted by the same shareholders who trumpet ESG - its an interesting dynamic to say the least!
It would be good to implement the seventh generation principle which is based on making decisions now that will benefit our descendants seven generations from now. Anything else is fatally short-sighted.
>> or may not ever be realized as we could be wiped out by a global pandemic, asteroid impact, CME eruption that destroys all modern infrastructure running on a circuit board, warfare, or simply some unknown unknown yet to be as well known as these others?
Or, on the warlike side, Putin, the ChiComs, the mullahs, or the NorKo Nutjob decide to test their nukes - somewhere other than on their own territories.
To me, that's more of an existential threat (especially the last two) than anything else.
Oh, I forgot - and SMOD. You forgot multiple volcanoes, VB...shame on you for your lack of foresight and doomscaring (heh!).
I agree - 7 generations is 175 years. What would someone have been doing in 1849 that would cataclysmically affect us this far in the "future"? And SusanA, what could VB do now that would affect someone in 2200?
I prefer to enjoy the remaining life I have and not sit around being despondent.
It shouldn’t be under the same umbrella because it’s a completely different discipline. The first two listed are communications.
Sustainability measures typically include supply chains, resource management, engineering and product development. The communications people just write the press release about the initiatives.