Corporations promote individual-focused solutions, the 'I-frame,' which they know are ineffective. BP popularized the personal carbon footprint to distract from their systemic impact and lobby against regulations that would actually force change.
People focus their environmental efforts on highly visible but low-impact items like plastic bags and recycling. The climate and environmental impact of the food products they purchase—particularly meat—is orders of magnitude greater. This reveals a massive misallocation of public concern and effort.
To counter political backlash against ESG, Mars' CEO reframes sustainability as a fundamental business imperative. For a food company reliant on agriculture, climate change directly threatens crop viability and affordability. This makes environmental action a matter of operational resilience and risk management, completely separate from political debate.
Western culture's focus on hyper-individualism leads people to feel personally responsible for solving massive, systemic issues. This creates immense pressure and an illogical belief that one must find a perfect, individual solution to a problem that requires a collective response.
Citing a Harvard Business School study of 1,800 companies, Sir Ronald Cohen reveals the staggering scale of negative externalities. A third of these firms (600) cause environmental damage equivalent to a quarter or more of their profits, while 250 create more damage than they make in profit, highlighting the financial materiality of impact.
Many well-intentioned 'nudges' are ineffective at a systemic level. For example, defaulting consumers into green energy tariffs doesn't create new renewable energy; it simply reallocates the existing supply to different customers, resulting in no net progress.
The model of pressuring tech companies to go green doesn't apply to major industrial emitters like oil and steel. For them, the cost of eliminating emissions can be several times their annual profit, a cost no shareholder base would voluntarily accept.
AI companies minimizing existential risk mirrors historical examples like the tobacco and leaded gasoline industries. Immense, long-term public harm was knowingly caused for comparatively small corporate gains, enabled by powerful self-deception and rationalization.
While reducing your personal carbon footprint has a negligible direct impact, purchasing new technologies like heat pumps or EVs sends powerful market signals. This helps nascent companies scale and reduces costs for everyone later.
Instead of focusing on marginal emissions cuts, companies should leverage their unique capabilities to solve hard problems. This means acting as early buyers for new green technologies or investing in R&D within their supply chains, creating new markets for the entire industry.
The popular idea that regenerative agriculture can reverse global warming by sequestering carbon in soil is mostly a fantasy. Measuring and verifying soil carbon is difficult, its permanence is questionable, and it's being used by corporate polluters to "offset" emissions through flawed carbon markets, distracting from real, proven solutions.