Ibrahim 1

Hadi Ibrahim

Hadimajedibrahim@gmail.com

Professor Gonzalez

English 103

28 February 2023

Who Equals Why: An Analysis of Who Should Be Held Responsible for the Environmental

Crisis

“You are young and life is long, And there is time to kill today. And then one day you

find, ten years have got behind you. No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun”

(Waters). The environmental crisis is hardly shrouded in mystery from the systematic pollution

and destruction of critical ecological infrastructure like forests and oceans to the

well-documented phenomena known as climate change; no scientists are scratching their heads.

On a planet full of fading color, the truth could not be more black and white. And yet as society's

conversation around this existential threat continues to develop, it only produces symbolic

measures designed exclusively to deflect and deny. This delay continues in the face of society's

ever shorting time, “And you run and you run to catch up with the sun. But it's sinking. Racing

around to come up behind you again. The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older.

Shorter of breath and one day closer to death” (Waters). The idea that time equals money is not

just a phrase, it is a proportionality that is a constant of the capitalist society that forms the

Western world. This proportionality is the key to discovering why society does so little to give

life on earth more time. By tracing what institutions benefit fiscally from society's inaction, it's

easy to conclude that both corporations and regulators should be held responsible for the severity

and lack of improvement in the current environmental crisis.

 Ibrahim 2

To start, by understanding both the inherent effects and causal chains of the myriad of

different ways corporations exploit the environment for profit, it's clear to infer that corporations

are one of the two forces that greatly outweigh any other when it comes to environmental impact,

and thereby jointly hold blame for the current environmental crisis. The most direct example of

corporations exploiting the environment is one of sheer recklessness in which corporations

ignore both science and good judgment for the sake of profits. This type of exploitation is often

found in the oil and gas industry. One of the common perpetrators within the oil and gas industry

is natural gas giant ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil's complete disregard of the environment in the

name of profit is highlighted in the article, “Just 90 Companies are to Blame for Most Climate

Change, this 'Carbon Accountant'”: ExxonMobil has remained as one of the top 3 C02 emitters

as a percentage of cumulative global Impact since 1891. All while making significant attempts

to discredit scientific knowledge surrounding climate change despite its own scientists knowing

of its clear-cut effects (Starr). Not only do ExxonMobil’s actions show a sickening disregard for

its ecological impact, but it also helps set a frame of reference for ExxonMobli’s state of mind.

The combination of unchanging behavior and intentional misinformation causes ExxonMobil to

clearly skip over the state of mind needed for its actions to be classified as negligent or even

grossly negligent. Rather, it leans far more heavily into recklessness and even at times actual

malice. This distinction between negligence and gross negligence, which is akin to a mistake or

strong oversight, compared to recklessness or actual malice which is more akin to a choice of

behavior without regard to consequences or intentionally negative behavior is another key theme

that will aid in the confirmation of corporations' blame.

Furthermore, another way corporations exploit the environment is by stripping natural

ecological infrastructure of its resources both at an unsustainable rate and for little to no
 Ibrahim 3

compensation to those who resided on the land. While all types of companies participate in these

unethical business practices none is more notorious than the food and drink conglomerate Nestle.

An investigation by the California State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water

Rights into a specific example of potential misconduct by Nestle discovered that “While Nestlé

may be able to claim a valid basis of right to some water from the Strawberry Creek watershed, a

significant portion [372.74 AF or greater] of the water currently diverted by Nestlé appears to be

diverted without a valid basis of right” (“INV 8217”). Other than the obvious environmental

harm done by the cyclical practice of bottling water and then selling it back to those who it was

taken from, Nestle’s actions are seemingly non-malicious. That's until one realizes that Nestle's

“mistake” of diverting an extra 372.74 AF of water is the equivalent of taking an additional

121,457,701.74 gallons of water without permission and certainly without fair compensation.

Stealing is defined as the act of taking property without legal basis and with the intent to deprive

the owner of said property. It's clear Nestle had no legal basis, and by bottling and selling the

water it's easy to infer there was a solid intent to deprive the public of their water. This in

combination with the magnitude of the theft makes it easy to classify Nestle’s actions as reckless

at best. And at worst, when one considers the ease with which a multi-billion dollar

conglomerate could do proper due diligence, blatantly malicious. Both of these examples are

hardly isolated instances and rather clear characterizations of how modern corporations harm the

environment on an unmatched scale.

Continuing, when hearing of all of this wrongdoing it's easy to ask oneself why any

organization would do this, and the answer is quite simple. By nature of our capitalist society,

corporations have a duty to their shareholders to generate as much profit as possible regardless of

adverse effects. That's why it's so important for strong and firm regulation to prevent misconduct
 Ibrahim 4

and lead the way to a more sustainable future. However, those who should be acting as impartial

referees only biased toward the needs of the people seem to only be puppets of those very same

corporations. This prompts the very same question of why. This time the answer is fiscal benefit

in the form of campaign donations. Due to the landmark supreme court decision in the case of

“Citizens United v. FEC”, Campaign donations are considered a First Amendment-protected

activity (“Citizens United v. FEC”). This decision effectively legalizes bribery in the United

States as massive corporations are allowed to utilize their unmatched capital to both, fund

regulators who are unlikely to take any action to protect the environment, and silence any

regulators who may want to take action by threatening the withholding of champaign donations

that are critical to maintaining power within the United States government. Worst of all the

Supreme Court's decision to protect this doctrine with the first amendment means that Congress

can enact no legislation to change this. Meaning, the only way to roll back this policy would be

through an amendment to the United States Constitution something seemingly impossible in

today's political climate.

Some may say, that the burden of the environmental crisis relies on the average consumer

rather than corporations or regulators. According to attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr who

represents ExxonMobile, “I think the IPCC does not say it’s the production and extraction of oil

that is driving these emissions. It’s the energy use. It’s economic activity that creates demand for

energy. It’s the way people are living their lives” (“ExxonMobil wants you”). While this quote is

specific to ExxonMobil this sentiment is shared by a myriad of corporations. However, the

premise that consumer choice is what drives corporations' decisions and thereby the

environmental crisis is extremely misleading. This is because the consumer trends that these

corporations hide behind are driven by decades of conditioning and consolidation leaving
 Ibrahim 5

consumers with little to no viable choices. Fundamentally consumers can only do so much when

it comes to voting with their wallets. This is why citizens trust regulators to protect them from

predatory corporations. However, via lobbying efforts, this protection has eroded leaving

consumers at the whims of Multi-Billion dollar corporations whose only goal is profit.

As society approaches the point of no return the actions we chose to take with our

dwindling time become exponentially more important. Whether it be through the courtroom, the

legislature, or via protest; corporations and regulators need to systematically change in order for

Earth to continue being humanity's home.

 Ibrahim 6

Bibliography

Google. Lyricfind, g.co/kgs/RPe8wu. Accessed 14 Mar. 2023.

Lawrence, Larry. Revised Report of Investigation, INV 8217. Report no. 8217,
California State STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD DIVISION OF WATER
RIGHTS. Waterboards.ca.gov, www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/
programs/enforcement/complaints/docs/nestle/4_23_2021_nestle_roi.pdf.
Accessed 14 Mar. 2023.

Science.org. 25 Aug. 2016, www.science.org/content/article/

just-90-companies-are-blame-most-climate-change-carbon-accountant-says.
Accessed 14 Mar. 2023.

United States, U.S. Supreme Court (U.S.). Citizens United v. FEC. Fec.gov,
federal election commission, www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/.
Accessed 14 Mar. 2023.

Vox.com. Vox, 13 May 2021,

www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-ExxonMobil-harvard-study.
Accessed 14 Mar. 2023.