World’s top corporations cause $2.2 trillion in environmental damage
A study currently underway for the United Nations is calculating the cost of pollution and other environmental damage caused by the 3,000 biggest public companies in the world. The study, which will be published this summer, has found that the economic cost of environmental damage by these top 3,000 companies is $2.2 trillion dollars, or more than one-third of their profits if they were held financially accountable. This includes greenhouse gas emissions, other pollution, and water degradation. The final amount is likely to increase once additional costs – like toxic waste – are incorporated.
In an article about this upcoming report, the Guardian newspaper wrote: “The report comes amid growing concern that no one is made to pay for most of the use, loss and damage of the environment, which is reaching crisis proportions in the form of pollution and the rapid loss of freshwater, fisheries and fertile soils.”
So basically, what this upcoming report says is that a big chunk – about 1/3 – of the profits that these big companies are making is due to the fact that they are not paying the full costs of operating. They are shoving a whole range of costs – from pollution to climate change to water depletion – onto communities around the world – onto us! Communities around the world are bearing the costs with degraded health, soil, water and climate change. That’s just not fair.
In the Story of Stuff film, I talked about how externalized costs allowed me to buy a little radio for the irrationally low price of $4.99. This report in a good first step at showing the global scale of externalized costs. If we’re going to get our economy and environment back in order, a top priority must be forcing companies to pay the full costs of production. In economist-speak, this means internalizing externalities. That would be a strong motivator to get companies to invest in the cleaner, less polluting approaches and encourage all of us to avoid superfluous consumption. If the true cost of that cotton t-shirt or iPod was really included in the price tag, we might think twice before chucking and replacing it before we really need to. Think about that next time you look at those insanely low prices on so much consumer stuff – who is really paying the full cost of producing all this? Apparently not the companies which make it!
Share
RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:34 pm
I LOVE the Story of Stuff film, and that you are getting this info out to the public because most people don’t think this many steps out and they should!! We all should for our own health, our own pocket books, and most importantly our one and only Earth!!! Thanks for sharing this!
March 3rd, 2010 at 6:48 pm
wow 1/3 of net-profits. In a way I’m actually surprised that its that little. From the way some industry spokespersons are talking you would think that it would bankrupt every company in America if they were made fully accountable for their impact. I guess it would mean a few lean years for the companies but it doesnt sound like most companies would fail if they paid more towards the cost of their impact.
Thanks for pointing this article out … love the blog and movie.
March 5th, 2010 at 8:04 am
I guess one cost that isn’t yet included in the 1/3 of net profits figure, and which would bump it up substantially if it were, is if the corporations paid the true value of all non-renewable raw materials, unlike at present when they are effectively treated as an infinite resource to be plundered freely.
March 5th, 2010 at 10:03 am
hey I’m in Thailand and I saw that!
It’s great!
Thank you .
I try to share.
March 6th, 2010 at 4:25 am
I guess it would mean a few lean years for the companies but it doesnt sound like most companies would fail if they paid more towards the cost of their impact.
March 6th, 2010 at 8:21 am
The big multi-nationals make huge profits, it would seem fair for them to pay for the damage they cause. We do however live in a very un-fair, un-just world.
March 10th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
I have a question about a number in the film, which I’m sure has been answered before… about the 1% of stuff still being in use after six months.
It strikes me that a fair portion of the stuff we consume is just that, consumed. Are food and medicine included in the 99% not in use after six months?
Because while there are more sustainable ways to produce, package, and buy food, there’s really no getting around the fact that most of us can’t grow all our own, and every one of us needs it.
March 15th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
A not so surprising number, but interesting none the less. This is basically what the documentary The Corporation also reports.
Accountability and responsibility on every level, organisational and individual is a thing we should strive for in my opinion. If you know what you are responsible for and other people know what you are responsible for and we all know what organisations are responsible for what, we can all make superior choices.
March 15th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
“Consumer” is not a legitimate word for describing human beings. It is BusinessSpeak. People are product users. So, why do you continue to peddle this bias? You even go so far as to call product usage “consumption.”
meanwhile, blaming “consumerism” for our crisis is to to privatize the problem and let the corporate capitalists off the hook.
Think about it:
http://www.consumertrap.com/consumer-bias
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/planet/planet.html
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:16 am
I like the idea of this video. If you want to spread this message, people have to trust you. I don’t believe you when you say “you” were the one that did the research on the cost of that radio, or why our computers become obsolete. It may seem unimportant to you, and maybe it makes the video run more smoothly, but it takes away your credibility.
June 4th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
2.2 trillion dollars is a shitload of money. To be frank, i want that a lot.I could finally buy a
car (: (and leave my box, with wheels on the side of the road finally) Coooool Beanns.
August 6th, 2010 at 7:09 am
I guess it would mean a few lean years for the companies but it doesnt sound like most companies would fail if they paid more towards the cost of their impact.
August 12th, 2010 at 9:02 am
The question is: What is more important?
1. The profit today or
2. The future tomorrow