Translated material
Battle for Planet Earth
Sharon Begley (Newsweek)
The decisions of individual companies matter more than the activity of millions of citizens
The decisions of individual companies matter more than the activity of millions of citizens
Over the past decades, society has already been sufficiently frightened by pictures of environmental horrors. To correct the situation, it is ready to do anything - except reduce the standard of living. (Photo: Greenpeac )
Julia Hill spent two years in a redwood tree in a 6-by-8-foot nest. To protest the cutting down of ancient forests, she endured hurricane-force winds of 90 miles per hour, El Niño downpours, and almost constant dampness and cold. She ate mostly raw vegetables and fruits, and used a plastic bucket as a toilet. When Julia came down to earth last December, it turned out that she had almost forgotten how to walk. And all this time, in California's Humboldt County, the howl of a saw did not stop. Pacific Lumber did not touch the tree Hill was sitting in or the 2.9 acres of woods around it. The remaining 10,000 acres owned by the company, including redwood trees, were cut down.
Saving one tree amid the loss of forests is what the United States came up with for the thirtieth anniversary of Earth Day. The results of Julia Hill's protest confronted environmentalists with an unpleasant fact: individual actions in defense of the environment pale in comparison to the actions of big business and the state.
"People tend to rely on good intentions and personal responsibility, partly because they see it as a way to get something done and don't think about efficiency," says green movement veteran Barry Commoner of Queens College in New York. their side is avoiding the issue."
No matter how many of us switched from aerosols to roll-on deodorant, the CFCs in the cans continued to destroy the ozone layer until the production and use of these chemicals began to decline around the world - until 1987, when an international agreement was reached. known as the Montreal Protocol. Millions are willing to walk rather than drive to the mailbox, but the 68-plus million high-powered cars on America's roads remain the main source of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. One decision by the head of Royal Dutch/Shell affects the health of the planet more than shredded compost, wearing natural fabrics and other eco-fairy items presented at Earth Day celebrations in Washington. Now, if the billion people living in developed countries stopped driving cars, switched to solar energy and replaced old devices with new ones that are more efficient, then greenhouse gas emissions could indeed plummet. The question is what is easier: to organize such mass actions or to force several corporations and governments to take appropriate decisions.
The idea of the first Earth Day - April 22, 1970 - revealed a naive self-confidence: the harm caused to the planet can be corrected with one's own hands. This inspired an estimated 20 million people who participated in Earth Day events such as dumping 5 tons of roadside trash at a courthouse in West Virginia or a car funeral in San Jose (an anti-air pollution protest). In those days, people believed that everyone's personal contribution was of great importance. This is evidenced by the titles of the then bestsellers like “50 things you can do to save the planet”, and public campaigns: buy fewer cars, cooperate and ride with those who are on the same path, switch from cars to bicycles, reuse waste, boycott wood from rain forests (tropical forests fed by seasonal rains - “Results”) and buy tuna caught only in dolphin-safe nets.
Earth Day 2000 has a different pathos. More than 5,000 groups in 185 countries are trying to combat climate change and the threats associated with a warming climate: rising sea levels, changing agricultural zones, and an increase in extreme weather events. The slogan of Earth Day 2000 is “Clean Energy Now!” - calls for replacing energy sources that generate greenhouse gases with safer energy resources (solar panels, wind turbines, etc.). Environmental orthodoxies have already taken their homes off the grid in favor of solar panels on their roofs and fuel cells in their basements, but if their numbers continue to grow at the same rate, orange groves will bloom in Alaska before the greenhouse effect is brought under control.
If anything has opened the eyes of environmentalists, it's the story of the hamburger. Environmentalists protested McDonald's use of plastic boxes because they were made with CFCs and called for a boycott of McDonald's restaurants. But - who would have thought! - the love of hamburgers easily overcame environmental awareness. Meanwhile, the Environmental Defense Fund found a better solution - it began working with McDonald's to design a box that would keep the burger hot but would not harm the ozone layer. In 1989, McDonald's replaced the plastic box with a cardboard one.
This success marked the beginning of a new direction in the green movement. The foundation worked with parcel delivery services to increase the proportion of recycled paper and plastic in their packaging. Conservation International encouraged Starbucks, which owns a chain of coffee shops across the country, to grow coffee in Mexico without using chemical fertilizers, and clothing retailer Gap now uses similarly grown cotton. The Environmental Defense Fund is again working with McDonald's to find ways to reduce energy costs by at least 10 percent.
It is difficult to say how much of these steps are driven by a sincere desire of companies to be respectable members of society, and how much by the economic benefits of a “green” image. This is partly, of course, an imitation of environmental friendliness (greenwashing). When Germany last year recognized the consumer's right to choose the source of their electricity, the Bavarian company Bayernwerk launched Aqua Power, labeled as 100% green, a renewable element whose electricity is generated exclusively by hydroelectric power plants. In fact, consumers still get their electricity from all industrial sources: hydroelectric power plants, coal and gas plants and nuclear power plants. Nothing has changed except accounting for electricity consumption, and there is no real gain for nature. The only winner is Bayernwerk, which is inundated with orders for Aqua Power, despite its higher cost.
The forms of imitation of “green activity” are very diverse. "Companies often promote themselves as friends of nature even after they've already been caught committing environmental violations," says Jill Johnson of the group Earth Day 2000. For example, California's PG&E is scheduled to go on trial in California in November on charges of water pollution. "PG&E has a very strong environmental record," says spokesman Greg Prewett, referring to the company's track record of reducing waste and reusing it. Forestry company Weyerhaeuser is destroying old-growth forests in Canada, but is trumpeting the 100 million seedlings it will plant this year.
Overall, however, the greening of American corporations is feasible and not as elusive as some environmentalists imagine.
"Companies have become more aware that reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be beneficial," says Paul Portney, president of the think tank Resources for the Future. More and more companies are changing the heating and lighting systems of their buildings, redesigning their production facilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, their electricity bills. (Energy upgrades can save a company about a dollar per square foot of office or factory space annually.) Greenhouse gas emission reductions often exceed the amount required by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. (The goal he set—a reduction of seven percent from 2000 levels—is so daunting to many oil, coal, and chemical companies that the White House is still hesitant to submit the protocol to the Senate for ratification).
Corporations from Xerox and Compaq to Du Pont, 3M and Toyota have realized that going green can be cost-effective, said Joseph Romm, director of the nonprofit Center for Energy and Climate Change. Royal Dutch/Shell is reducing greenhouse gas emissions from its mining operations and plans to achieve a reduction of 25 percent from 1990 levels to 100 million tons by 2002. To achieve the same effect, all New England cars would have to be taken off the road for five years. Du Pont has cut its emissions by 40 percent this year from 1991 levels, to 58 million tons. Anyone who dutifully unscrews old incandescent light bulbs and replaces them with compact fluorescent ones can estimate: Boeing's lighting upgrades have reduced lighting energy consumption by 90 percent and saved 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide every year. To achieve this, half a million people would have to change light bulbs.
Companies that are not able to squeeze a single kilowatt-hour into their own households can finance someone else. Shaklee, a consumer goods company and $1.3 billion carpet maker Interface Inc. are paying to switch school boilers from coal to natural gas, which produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions. "There's been a tremendous change in the corporate world," says Gaylord Nelson, who, as a senator from Wisconsin, initiated the first Earth Day.
None of this is to say that personal decisions don't play a role. Another way they play: the thoughtless fashion for heavy-duty jeeps has led to the annual emission of approximately 200 million more tons of carbon dioxide compared to what would have happened if everyone had stayed with their small Taurus. Yet the individual will do more good for the environment if he makes demands on corporations and governments rather than lecturing his Jeep-driving buddies or sitting in a tree for two years.