Photo by: Francois Mori
To start, it is important to explain the Paris Climate Agreement. Put simply, the Paris Climate Agreement is an agreement that was made in December of 2015 to reduce emissions and combat climate change. The long term goal of this agreement is to limit the temperature increase to no more than 1.5 degrees celsius while simultaneously helping prepare countries for the disastrous effects of climate change. So far 195 countries have adopted the Paris Climate agreement, including the United States. So far only two countries are ahead of their climate goals and the United States is definitely not one of them.
The two countries most on track to reducing their emissions and fulfilling the Paris Agreement are not who you would think. Currently, Morocco and The Gambia are the only countries predicted to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Morocco holds the spot as number one due to their ambitious climate strategy. By 2030 the country is on course to have more than 50% of its electricity produced from renewable energy and by 2050 coal energy entirely phased out. The Gambia is second for similar reasons. As a developing country The Gambia is an exemplar in the fight for climate change. Like Morocco the country is adopting renewable energy (mostly solar) on a large scale. Additionally, The Gambia is reversing the effects of climate change with massive afforestation projects. So why is it that two small African countries (one of them still developing) are massively out performing the United States in their climate goals?
Well, because of recent policy changes. As of 2019 the United States ranks as one of the lowest countries on course for fulfilling the Paris Agreement. In fact, every western country is ahead of the US as well as many developing countries such as: India, Philippines, Ethiopia, and Bhutan. This is a result of policy changes and rollbacks of the Trump administration. For example, Trump’s new replacement for the Clean Power Plan does not enforce regulations to limit Hydrofluorocarbon emissions (a harmful greenhouse gas) and puts limited focus on vehicle efficiency standards. Under the US’s current administration the economy is seen as far more important than the environment leaving people to believe the US should leave and stop focusing on the Paris Agreement. This economy over climate encouragement from the US government is the same force halting the Green New Deal (a deal designed to reduced greenhouse gases to net 0) and allowing for lax regulations on methane leaks from oil.
How other countries and individuals view the United States in the fight for climate change is critical. The US has long been a leading power in the world. Its economy is widespread and deeply rooted and its military serves as a defense for over 67 countries. Other countries depend on the US but also look up to the US; its reputation in the battle for climate change transcends US borders. In the climate crisis of today it is crucial that the US take environmental matters seriously. If the US can step up and put forward policies that protect the environment rather than the economy, the world would view them differently. As a top influential country in the world it is the duty of the United States to lead the world in environmental protection and set a precedent for all countries.
Photo by Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images
These past couple years the effects of climate change have been particularly discernible in the state of California. California has long been one of the leading states in battling climate change, possibly in part due to the state also being one of the main victims of climate change. For the first seven years of this decade the state endured a historic drought, and now it battles infernos on an unprecedented scale. Every couple of weeks during the summer a “red flag” warning is declared which signal a particularly dangerous time for a wildfire (low humidity, and high winds). California’s wildfire problem is no doubt due to climate change. As our globe warms, conditions for wildfires to start, and continue blazing, become more ideal in the golden state. To make matters worse, as the disasters have become more frequent and worrisome, the Pacific Gas & Electric Company, known as PG&E, has made a choice to cut all power to “red flag” zones.
Photo by Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images
As early as 2014, PG&E has been linked to many destructive fires across stretches of Northern California and wine country. In 2017, sparks from defective PG&E power lines lead to a dozen blazes killing up to 50 people. These fires quickly became a very expensive PR crisis for PG&E. The company faced multiple lawsuits and its share price began to plummet with its reputation. With bankruptcy in sight the company made a drastic and highly controversial decision: to shut off power to red zones whenever necessary. In theory, this practice is perfect for the energy company as it guaranteed no more lawsuits; however, the decision to cut power has received heavy backlash.
PG&E’s power shut offs could prove to be a second PR crisis for the company. So, for multiple days the electric company can shut off power to areas at particularly high risk of fire helping to prevent the infernos, sounds good right? Well, there are many who disagree. The loss of power in densely populated areas of California is becoming a financial, and safety danger. With power being shut off for up to a week in some places, many stores (especially local mom and pop style businesses) have lost large sums of money. (insert scotties market link) When the power goes off in restaurants or stores everything frozen or refrigerated goes bad and must be thrown away. Still, this is not the biggest problem associated with the power outages. No power naturally poses a great safety threat. Many without generators rely on important medical equipment to stay alive and without power they literally lose their lifeline. Additionally, devices like street lamps and air conditioning become a problem when car accidents rise or elder homes become saunas.
As conditions for fires worsen in California due to climate change, it is hard to say what PG&E will do next. Leaving the power on will inevitably result in more wildfires, but cutting power results in dangerous external consequences. As of now the company has chosen the lesser of two evils, and maintains the authority to cut electricity off whenever necessary.
Environmentally Friendly Stores of Today
With the threat of climate change in the near future it is easy to lose track of the eco-friendly companies that deserve praise. While it is true that much of today’s climate problems can be attributed to wasteful companies or the fossil fuel industry, not all businesses are destructive. In fact, there are a few organizations making sustainability their top priority and they deserve more recognition for their efforts.
1. Starbucks
Starbucks may be known for their heavy use of disposable and wasteful cups, however, as of 2019 the company is making big changes to go green. First, the company has nearly eliminated the single use plastic straw. Additionally, Starbucks has also offered reduced prices to any customer that brings in their own reusable cup. Lastly, and most importantly, Starbucks is launching a campaign to make “green stores” that adopt principles of sustainability from the air conditioning down to the construction materials
2. Chipotle
Not so surprisingly, Chipotle, makes the list of sustainable businesses. In the food industry Chipotle is one of the leaders in eco-friendly food chains. This is because the companies strict regulation on where their food comes from. The organization sources their food relatively locally and free of antibiotics and pesticides. Chipotle also keeps a detailed sustainability report accessible to the public.
3. Ford
The automotive industry is frequently seen as one of those organizations with no respect for the environment. This statement holds some truth as vehicular emissions have an impactful contribution to today’s environmental problems. Ford, however, is making big steps toward sustainability. Like Chipotle, they keep a sustainability report from each year. In this report they mention the recycling of paint fumes as fuel and geothermal cooling in some of their factories. Additionally, the company uses sustainable fabrics in its new vehicles and constructs their vehicles with mostly recycled materials.
4. Nike
A few years ago I would not have put Nike on a list of sustainable businesses, however, in the past couple years Nike has changed. Recently, Nike has been very open about their supplies and where they come from allowing the consumer to make more sustainable choices. The company has also released an app to aid in the customers choice for more green products. Some of the organization’s products are also constructed using post-consumer recycled materials in energy efficient factories.
The point is that some organizations are working with the environment rather than destroying it. These companies recognize the future of business and are already reaping the rewards. Sustainable businesses have a very positive reputation from the public. With companies like Nike and Starbucks, there are millions of people watching what they do. When these companies make sustainability a priority they set themselves up for success and establish positive public relations.
by Barbara Malt
In the past 20 years sustainable business models have become increasingly more popular. Most successful corporations or businesses these days have implemented some sort of environmentally friendly practice. The reason being is that sustainability is popular. With global warming on the rise, people are more willing to favor organizations that are eco-friendly and sustainable. These same organizations, while winning the support of their customers, are able to charge higher prices because they provide an additional benefit to their goods or services. In short, maintaining good corporate social responsibility through a sustainable business model leads to a better company reputation and more profits. So, how can you make your business more environmentally friendly?
1. Establish an intuitive recycling system
Most businesses these days have some sort of recycling system; however, they are not all intuitive. Having a recycling system that clearly sorts out glass from aluminum from cans will help encourage sustainable business and thus attract more customers.
2. Buy locally
Whether its food or goods, it is always environmentally friendly to buy locally. Importing goods from around the globe has a high externality cost in emissions. Often times it takes many hours in a truck, plane, or boat to bring the goods across the world at a low price. However, by sourcing locally you eliminate this transportation cost. While buying local is more expensive, most businesses can make up for the cost by charging higher prices for their more premium environmentally friendly goods. Studies show that people are willing to pay more for premium goods.
3. Eliminate single use items
Any kind of container or item that is designed to be used once then thrown in the landfill should go. Straws are unnecessary and styrofoam cups are avoidable in most businesses. Instead your organization could buy compostable utensils and bowls and place a composting section adjacent to an intuitive recycling section.
4. Reduce waste
This one may seem like a no-brainer; however, in the food industry there is still a lot of waste. One effective way to reduce waste is through a composting system where food waste and scraps go back into the environment. Although, rather than compost food, a sustainable business may donate leftover food to a local homeless shelter. In Eugene specifically there are a lot of homeless people that would happily accept leftover food.
5. Implement a green program
A green program would be when a company does something green (i.e. like plant a tree) for every product or service purchased. This in effect does two things: encourages people to invest in a company’s goods or services and helps better the planet and company reputation.
Although adopting a sustainable business model may seem more expensive, the rewards outweigh the risks. A sustainable business has the potential to make more money while simultaneously benefiting the environment and a companies reputation.
By Claire Trickett
When it comes to climate change many people discuss the importance of planting trees and saving our forests. The Amazon and Congo rainforests are often seen as a priority for preservation as well as our icebergs and polar caps. However, there is another type of forest, an underwater forest, that is frequently overlooked in the fight for climate change: our reefs. Our reefs are dying at a rapid pace and are just as important to ocean life as the great jungles of the world are to our life. Arguably some of the most diverse ecosystems on earth, our reefs are dying at an unprecedented speed. Already, more than half of the great coral reef off the coast of Australia has faded due to a phenomenon called “coral bleaching.” Coral bleaching is when temperature change in the water causes coral to release bacteria that kills the coral turning it white. Putting a stop to coral bleaching and the destruction of our reefs should be a top priority and here is why:
- Coral reefs are the cradle of life for many marine organisms.
Coral reefs are home to many marine species and are part of a delicate balanced ecosystem. When the coral dies its effects are seen all the way up the food chain. The reefs attract many smaller organisms that use the coral as their habitat and shelter. These smaller organisms are also essential prey for some of the bigger predators that visit the reefs.
- Reefs are essential for water quality and ocean health
Often lesser known, coral reefs are a huge source of essential nutrients for marine food chains. Additionally, reefs play an important role in nutrient recycling. Reefs often contain high amounts of nitrifying bacteria that eat the toxic ammonia from decaying matter and food waste.
Reefs in the shallow water is actually critical in protecting the shores we live on. The thick coral serves as a barrier protecting from the damaging effects of heavy waves. Additionally, as global warming brings more and larger tropical storms our reefs will be even more important in protecting against the catastrophic of hurricanes and tsunamis.
- They are a big part of our economy
Our reefs provide massive amounts of revenue from tourism alone. Australia makes close to 2 billion US dollars a year off the tourism associated with the Great Barrier Reef. Another economic advantage of reefs is fishing. The fishing industry relies on the fish visiting the reefs to make money and the reefs provide a safe place for juvenile fish to grow before heading to deeper water.
For the health of our environment and many coastal economies it is essential that we save our coral reefs. There are currently efforts to regrow the coral reefs of the world at an expedited pace, however, to make a real difference we must put a halt to global warming. If not, our great reefs may fall victim to coral bleaching with devastating consequences.
by Jade Sterling
As our environment slowly degrades many are saying that fossil fuel companies are responsible for a large portion of pollutants worldwide, and this statement holds a lot of truth. Currently, both natural gas and petroleum account for more than half of the US energy consumption. Additionally, every year fossil fuels alone pump millions of pounds of pollutants into the air. So, what is there to be done? Its argued that to alleviate the environmental damage of fossil fuels, we must look toward renewable energy. In today’s climate, when renewable energy is mentioned people argue for more wind energy or heavier reliance on solar power but stray away from the idea of nuclear energy. People don’t like nuclear energy for two reasons: it has a bad reputation, and it is considered expensive.
The reality is that the public fears nuclear power. In the 50’s when nuclear power first made an appearance it seemed too good to be true; plants that provide large amounts of clean power with little downside. That was until the Kyshtym disaster in 1957 where the soviets built a rushed power plant that had an explosion in the cooling system resulting in the displacement of over 200,000 people. However, soviet secrecy swept Kyshtym under the rug for years until Chernobyl. In 1986 one of the reactors at the Chernobyl power plant exploded, forcing the evacuation of the entire city.
Both these disasters occurred because of mistakes made by soviet scientists or inadequate knowledge of nuclear power. However, it wasn’t until 2011 that fear of nuclear energy became most prominent. In 2011, in the wake of Japan’s earthquake and following tsunami, the Fukushima power plant experienced nuclear meltdowns and the release of radioactive contamination. For the first time people realized nuclear accidents could be out of human control; Tsunamis or other natural disasters could be the catalysts. This was the beginning of modern distaste for nuclear energy.
Since Fukushima, the company responsible for electric power in the area, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), received heavy backlash. TEPCO’s stock toppled and the company almost collapsed if not for state funding from the Japanese government. The 2011 disaster revealed to energy companies that nuclear power plants are a liability and to the public that they are dangerous. Energy companies simply do not want the responsibility of power plants because they are a PR disaster waiting to happen. However, nuclear power plants get a bad reputation.
Nuclear power plants provide clean energy without the pollutants associated with fossil fuels. While the plants are relatively expensive to build they are cheap to maintain. In the long run the plants provide clean energy with cheap maintenance. Our knowledge of the nuclear power has grown exponentially too, meaning many of the problems that afflicted the earlier models are easily avoidable. Additionally, nuclear power is a great way for fossil fuel companies to develop a positive public image. Many of the big fossil fuel companies already have a bad public image due to heavy pollution; however, switching over to nuclear power can help fossil fuel companies restore their image.
Nuclear power is a classic risk versus reward situation. The ultimate risk is a nuclear disaster that displaces many citizens; however, the rewards are extensive. Switching over to nuclear power would greatly reduce pollutants world wide slowing global warming tremendously. Our planet is quickly degrading so maybe the risk associated with nuclear power is worth the reward.
by Anders Hellberg
For the past 30 years experts have been warning about the dangers of global warming. Almost unanimously, scientists have cautioned of the melting icebergs, rising sea levels, mass extinction of species, and super storms that accompany climate change. And, unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past year, I am sure you have heard Greta Thunberg’s famous address to the United Nations on global warming. So, why is what Thunberg is saying more influential than what climate researchers have already been preaching for years? Well, to put it simply: it’s because she is a real activist.
Scientists are not activists. They can preach their warnings and provide irrefutable research and evidence but they lack the ability to get others to listen. However, somehow Thunberg, a young teenager, has achieved what scientists have failed to do: to draw unprecedented attention to the issue. Perhaps her capacity for getting people to listen resides in her age. At 16 years old, Thunberg is rather young to be a world famous activist. However, this is exactly what makes her advocacy so powerful. Thunberg is young enough to posses no fault for the current environmental situation and she leads by example. The young woman makes a point of living her life as carbon neutral as possible. She has adopted a vegan diet and avoids all air travel, instead opting to travel by sailboat across the Atlantic.
Being so young also has an additional effect on her audience. Thunberg is only 16, and she has a long life ahead of her; meaning, the climate decisions that are made today will affect her for the rest of her life. This gives her warnings a level of pathos an older experienced climate researcher could never cultivate. Her followers truly feel empathy not only for her, but for her generation; a generation that must live with the consequences of the generation before them. Thunberg, like her peers is the victim. She is not to blame for today’s global warming problems, she was simply born in this world; however, she will have to live with the consequences of them.
This is what makes Thunberg’s activism so powerful. At only 16 years old she has made more people acknowledge climate change than any scientist or researcher with a PHD. This ability, to inspire and motivate people, is one of Thunberg’s greatest strengths and exactly why she is the person we need to lead this global fight against climate change.
From Volkswagen’s website
When people mention corporate social responsibility or public relation crisis in the 21st century our first thoughts immediately go to Volkswagen. In case you don’t already know let me briefly explain Volkswagen’s public relations nightmare. Back in 2015, Volkswagen released all their diesel cars (11 million) with illegal software intended to cheat emissions results. This software allowed the company to pass emissions tests despite its cars releasing more than 40 times the nitrogen oxide pollutant limits in the US. After three university students outed the company for their emissions scandal Volkswagen responded quite poorly.
After having been caught being deceitful Vokswagen’s former C.E.O. Martin Winterkorn, promptly responded saying “I personally am deeply sorry that we have broken the trust of our customers and the public.” Shortly after this statement Winterkorn resigned. The problem with Volkswagen and Winterkorn’s response is that it does not apologize for the true damage of the scandal. Volkswagen’s deceit did not just hurt their customers, or even the public. They cheated the system with no regard for the health of the people or the environment. 11 million vehicles cheating emissions has a lasting effect on the air quality we breathe and pollutes the environment in immeasurable ways. So when Volkswagen is “apologizing” for breaking the trust of their customers it comes off more as an apology for being caught.
In today’s world, harming the already increasingly depleting health of the environment is not taken lightly. There are rapidly growing movements worldwide dedicated to curbing the effects of climate change and saving the environment. The main enemy of these groups are companies like Volkswagen. So, in the future, as the ice caps melt, cities start drowning, and super storms rage across the equator, people will remember companies like Volkswagen who operate with no concern for the environment. The company can apologize and pay its fines but it can not erase the pollution pumped into the environment for profits.
If the environment worsens like it is predicted to, Volkswagen may have more lasting consequences for its emissions scandal. As the effects of climate change continue to worsen people will look at companies like Volkswagen as ruthless corporations with no respect for future generations. Unless, Volkswagen takes a more direct approach than its empty apology. Instead of paying fines and echoing apologies Volkswagen could invest in environmental programs against climate change. The organization has the funds and influence to make a real difference and do something tangible to rectify its mistakes. Volkswagen still has a chance to alleviate its mistake before it faces a second wave of bad publicity as the environment worsens.
By Rozina Sabur
In the early 2000’s Brazil was one of the global leaders on climate change. The country was known for its reliance on renewable energy sources and between 2005 and 2012 it successfully reduced deforestation by close to 80 percent. However, in recent years this has changed.
On January 1, 2019, Brazil’s climate stance changed dramatically with the election of Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro is a strong believe that environmental preservation is in opposition with economic growth, so the president campaigned on and succeeded in removing protections for the Amazon rainforest. Since then the Amazon has been under fire (literally) as cattle farms set the great rain forest ablaze for grazing fields. However, this is not Brazil’s only environmental problem of 2019. Early September the coast of Brazil has been engulfed in a terrible and mysterious oil spill and the government is doing little about it.
After almost two months Brazil’s government has struggled to make much progress cleaning the spill that has affected over a 1,000 miles of coast and have failed to locate the source. In light of the recent fires in the Amazon, and the lack of effort involved in cleaning the oil spill, Brazil has received an overwhelmingly negative perception from other countries and world leaders. However, their lack of action does not go without consequences.
Global leaders are noticing Brazil’s lack of action and laying down threats of their own. Already many US candidates such as Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 election have proposed fees on goods imported to the US from countries that don’t meet their carbon adjustment goals. Additionally, countries like France and Ireland have threatened Brazil with heavy sanctions for lack of action. When Brazil opted to shut down programs for curbing deforestation Germany froze $39 million in aid money and Norway cut an additional $33million. Brazil is quickly becoming the enemy in the eyes of many western leaders.
The important takeaway is that we are all responsible for our environment. The environmental problems taking place in Brazil right now are not just Brazil’s problems but everyone’s. Brazil is the most biodiverse country in the world estimated to be the host of somewhere between 15-20% of all species on earth. The great Amazon Rainforest produces so much of the worlds oxygen it is often referred to as the world’s lungs. It is up to everyone to protect the natural wonders of Brazil. We must pressure our representatives and governments and spread awareness so others will step in where Brazil wont.
As our climate warms there are certain clear consequences: sea levels and temperatures will heighten. These global warming ramifications have a clear correlation with natural disasters because, as the earth warms the probability of hot and record hot temperatures also increases. Scientists at NASA have theorized that these fluctuations in heat could alter storm formation due to a decrease in temperature difference between the poles and equator. Fluctuations in temperature, especially around the equator, result in bigger and more frequent mid-latitude storms affecting some of the most populated parts of the world. Additionally, record heat waves could cause damaging droughts and destructive fires; this is especially true in California.
Natural disasters are already occurring at record highs and they are only expected to increase with global warming. However, the US and many other countries alike have nonprofits in place to alleviate and restore communities from the damage caused by disasters. One such nonprofit is The American Red Cross. Red Cross is a US based nonprofit that relies heavily on donations and volunteers to combat the increase in disasters. Its work is only becoming progressively more important in today’s world.
James Cooper, a Disaster Planning Manager at Red Cross Sonoma County in California, has had his fair share of disaster experience. “The last two years have been some of the worst for Red Cross in California,” says Cooper. “With the higher temperatures California has seen an absolute record number of wildfires and we only expect it to get worse.” Cooper also shed some light on the future of Red Cross. “The good news is that people are stepping up,” says Cooper, “ We have seen a large increase in donations and our volunteer pool continues to grow.” As infernos continue to ravage the west coast Red Cross has been working hard. Lately, people view the organization in a positive light and as more individuals become affected by disasters they become more likely to donate or volunteer to the cause that helped them most: Red Cross.
Disaster relief organizations like the Red Cross are only becoming more relevant in today’s world. In some communities these organizations are the only line of defense against the damage caused by super hurricanes and relentless fires. The work these organizations are doing is truly altruistic and the public evidently recognizes that. However, the root of these problems is still climate change. We cannot solely rely on the work of organizations like the Red Cross when times get tough. It is up to us individuals to make the changes necessary to improve our climate and reduce disasters.
