Faust 1

Lea Faust

Mr. Prueter

AP Language and Composition

12-3-2021

To what extent can we expect large corporations to do their fair share in solving
global issues?

Climate change is a problem that has been grappled with for years. With global
temperatures climbing and sea levels rising and an increase in natural disasters, it’s hard
to not see the negatives. A massive problem like this calls for an even more massive
solution.

When looking for impactful ways to solve this larger than life issue,
responsibilities are pushed onto the general public. These ideas consist of being told to
bike places instead of taking a car, taking shorter showers to reduce the amount of water
used, utilizing reusable items to reduce plastic intake, and the list goes on.

While these are good habits to keep in mind, solutions to global warming can’t
just be placed on the individual. The general public is responsible for less than 20
percent of pollution world wide. If the change is continued to be focused on the people,
the needle will barely move forward. It’s a good idea, but it’s flawed logic. The problem is
that too often, responsibility is placed just on the individual, rather than being placed on
the large companies most responsible for the harm.

Consider where we place responsibility for putting an end to the use of fossil
fuels. Fossil fuels are well-known for a few reasons. One being they are constantly in
high demand and the other, more notorious reason, being their large contribution to
global pollution. According to a study done by the Climate Accountability Institute, “more
than half of emotions worldwide are produced from just twenty five companies that work
with fossil fuels” (Riley). These companies are well aware of this pile of evidence against
them, yet they don’t take initiative to fix their issue because of the money it would cost to
do so. Filled with fear about finances, these oil-based companies are worried that if they
spend anything to reduce their carbon footprint, they will lose investors and therefore for
large amounts of funding.. They clearly already have enough money to be contributing
this much to global emission levels, so shouldn’t they have enough money to help clean
up their mess?
 Faust 2

With alarming statistics like this, it’s hard to convince the general public they are
the main contributors to the problem. A group of people traveling on bike or in an electric
car instead of using a gas-operated car will barely scratch the surface of what needs to
be done. Yes, they still use oil and produce exhaust that is harmful to the environment,
but on a much smaller scale. Constantly telling everyday people that they have to make
drastic changes to save the environment just blinds them from the truth even more.

If fossil fuel emissions aren’t dramatically reduced by 2045, the average

temperatures around the world will increase at least four degrees celsius by the year
2100. On the surface, this might not seem like a big deal at all. We see it all the time;
Michigan temperatures can range ten degrees celsius in just one day. But this would
result in devastating effects. Issues such as “substantial species extinction and global
food scarcity risks” (Riley). This is a huge consequence and we have to stop risking it.
Climate Change is a snowball issue. It causes a rise in global temperatures that leads to
melting glaciers that leads to sea levels rising and animals fighting against extinction.
And that’s not even everything we could experience if this issue isn’t addressed soon.

Another negative aspect of change is being observed with universal ecosystems.

As a result of the extensive pollution to the atmosphere, the temperatures are rising, and
thus, Glaciers that have been frozen for thousands of years are starting to melt. This
affects not only the ecosystems of the animals living on these glaciers, but also human
settlements in coastal areas. With this ice melting back into water, ocean levels are only
going up. Ports, large cities, capitals, and whole countries could cease to exist by 2050.
And that’s not the worst part, “some 150 million people are now living on land that will be
below the high-tide line by midcentury” (Lu). What would this mean for all those who are
currently living in places soon to be swallowed by water? This is a blow that we wouldn’t
be ready for, as overcrowding is already an issue.

Not only do the glaciers melting affect humans, but they also affect the wildlife
that uses these icy trains as a habitat. According to a study done by UC Davis School of
Veterinary Medicine, “melting sea ice may be facilitating the spread of a disease called
Phocine distemper virus (PDV) among marine mammals” (Pope). This is an illness that
affects the respiratory and nervous system as well as leaving these arctic animals prone
to contracting more diseases afterwards. These animals already have their homes
disappearing, this just adds onto the struggles they have to face from human made
issues.

Illness in the animal kingdom isn’t the only place that a pandemic is being fought
off. During the Covid-19 world-wide shutdown, production in factories came to what
seemed like a screeching halt. This allowed for pollution to decrease dramatically. Italy
noticed that with this lockdown, “often murky canals began to get clearer, with fish visible
in the water below” (Chow). India, a country known for crowded cities and a buzzing
 Faust 3

population, noticed “Blue skies over Delhi– a city usually covered by smog and
pollution”(Krämer). Lockdown did keep almost the whole world inside, limiting their daily
activities, yet these activities weren’t the main contributor to the large-scale change
observed. The lack of pollution during this time was the largest influence. It was the
slowed work on a broad scale from corporate-owned factories that left the substantial
impact.

There is no current solution to Global Warming, as it is a large-scale issue that

would involve a lot of time, money, patience, hope, and cooperation. There is a current
approach though, and that is telling the general public that by doing all they can to help
save the environment. It’s unfortunately not logical, and not true. The general public can
try as much as they want to become zero-waste, but that still leaves close to eighty
percent of emotions still going full force. It’s time we take our efforts and place them
elsewhere.

This mindset and the corresponding efforts would be more effective if they were
geared towards the large couperations. With global companies doing the most to
contribute to the issue, they should be the ones contributing most to solving it. They
clearly have enough money to produce emissions on such a large scale, so they
definitely have enough to start cleaning up their mess. Obviously, cutting all emotions to
zero right off the bat is unrealistic, but there is a lot to be said about getting the ball
rolling, and sooner, rather than later.

Climate change is a large issue that isn’t going to go away with time, but only
become worse, so the sooner we start looking to fix the issue the better. These efforts for
change need to be targeted to the environment's biggest enemies instead of the general
public. With these large oil companies pushing out pollutants left and right causing the
snowball effect that is global warming, we have to expect they initiate some change. The
general public can only do so much, and with all our efforts, the issue still progresses.
This goes to show how we can’t be the ones held accountable here, it has to be the big
companies. With responsibilities shifted off the individual and onto the couperations,
more impactful results can be achieved quicker.

By addressing the largest aspect to this problem first, we don’t have to continue
on code red for climate change. This shift in thinking from the general public to the
couperations would allow for Global Warming to finally start being reversed. It’s time for
the carbon criminals to do their part for us all.
 Faust 4

Works Cited and Referenced

Chow, Denise. “Coronavirus Shutdowns Have Unintended Climate Benefits:

Cleaner Air, Clearer Water.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 18 Mar. 2020,
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/coronavirus-shutdowns-have-unintended
-climate-benefits-n1161921.

Krämer, Katrina. “How Covid Gave the World a Lesson in Tackling Air Pollution.”
Chemistry World, Royal Society of Chemistry, 18 May 2021,
www.chemistryworld.com/news/how-covid-gave-the-world-a-lesson-in-tackling-air-polluti
on/4013495.article.

Le Quéré, Corinne, et al. “Temporary Reduction in Daily Global CO2 Emissions

during the COVID-19 Forced Confinement.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 19
May 2020, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0797-x.

Lu, Denise, and Christopher Flavelle. “Rising Seas Will Erase More Cities by
2050, New Research Shows.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 29 Oct. 2019,
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/29/climate/coastal-cities-underwater.html.

Pope, Kristen. “Melting Ice Opens Doors for Wider Spread of Contaminants,
Diseases " Yale Climate Connections.” Yale Climate Connections, 2021 Yale Climate
Connections, 31 Mar. 2021,
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/06/melting-ice-opens-doors-for-wider-spread-of-
contaminants-diseases/.

Riley, Tess. “Just 100 Companies Responsible for 71% of Global Emissions,
Study Says.” The Guardian, Guardian News & Media Limited, 10 July 2017,
www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-invest
ors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change.

Rosen, Julia. “The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and
Proof.” The New York Times, The New York Times Company, 6 Nov. 2021,
www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html.