TH, as environmentalists would choose a strategy of working closely with corporations rather than

fighting them.

Stance: Fight corporations

What do I care about as environmentalist: Change, others perception of me?

Args:

1. Anger as a stronger emotion, more change ins

2. Compromise is difficult
a. Preclude pushing forward your own stronger interests when you have to comprise
with the interests of companies

Gov:

Compromising with corporations

A lot of changes, things you can’t advocate for when you have to compromise with companies

Attention:

How we grow the movement

1. A lot easier for the average person to identify with

Feedback:

1. Take a more direct approach

2. Interviewing climate refugees
3. Looking at nestle polluting waters etc
OG

PM

Args:

1. Fighting is harmful.
a. Look like:
i. Hostile stance, boycotting
b. *Less funding when you take fights
c. Recognize than environmental movements aren’t funded by corporations, we don’t
see the change they get on their side
d. *Too extreme
e. Only get urgency when you take this hostile stance, when you do hostile actions that
actually provoke media attention, that cause discussions around these issues
i. Emotion comparative
f. Pushback on protests
i. This probably happens even if people don’t protest against corps, but
instead fight against museums, national trusts etc the response is probably
stronger and u get more pushback on their side of the house
2. More effective and faster change
a. Corps want to be environmentally aware
i. We think insofar as all corporations are profit motivated, their claims are
probably untrue or don’t materialize, what happens on their side of the
house you get more greenwashing, and less effective change
ii. James literally gives you the mechanism for getting legitimization and a
better public perception
iii. We think that insofar as companies keep their profit motive, and there is a
power imbalance between corporations with more power and
environmentalists, on their side of the house you just give these
corporations legitimacy to keep greenwashing, you enable them to pretend
that they have an environmental conscience, they are working towards
green Rnd
iv. They try to tell you that this looks like donations, we just think this is
inherently untrue, because they tell you that companies negotiate and
compromise, we think they just delay at this point, and allow companies to
greenwash
b. Even if you don’t buy this, we think it is just ineffective that envs work with corps
i. Preclude pushing forward your own stronger interests when you have to
comprise with the interests of companies
ii. Different interests: Mantras of green movements around reducing
consumption, reducing meat intake, not buying certain products, reducing
productions
c. Impact of this response:
i. Gov can probably only effectively align with companies that have a green
interest, that are working in green technologies
 ii. What happens on their side of the house is they probably get an inconsistent
message of selectively choosing to work with some companies
iii. Notice on our side of the house we probably get a more unitive message,
which gets more attention

DPM

Responses:

1. Easier to get change

a. Companies want to change
1. Individuals habits don’t change

Args:

1. Extremism
a. More urgency, more change

2. A lot easier for the average person to identify with

a. More change