Strategic CSR - COP27

I don't know what you all have read and think about the recent COP27 conference. But, from what I have read, it can only be thought of as a failure. Just one of the many statistics to come out of the event – there were over 600 lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry present. Accordingly, they got exactly what they were no doubt paid a lot of money to secure – a toothless agreement to continue to talk about possibly doing something at some vague future point. As noted in the article in the url below:

"It really does beggar belief, that in the course of 27 Cops, there has never been a formal agreement to reduce the world's fossil fuel use. … It is no surprise, then, that from Cop1 in Berlin in 1995, to Egypt this year, emissions have continued – barring a small downward blip at the height of the pandemic – to head remorselessly upwards."

Of course, to plumb these depths, COP27 had to out-do the disastrous COP26, a year earlier:

"Expectations were never especially high over the course of the 12 months since Glasgow's Cop26. Even so, COP27 has to be a new low – held in a country cowed by a malicious dictatorship, the world's biggest plastic polluter on board as a sponsor, and hosting more than 600 fossil fuel representatives and many others who are there to prevent, rather than promote progress and action. Some old hands have labelled it the worst COP ever, and I doubt many would argue."

A big part of the problem, according to the author of the article, is the scale of each COP meeting, which takes place in front of the world media:

"In all honesty, it is becoming increasingly difficult to view these events as anything other than photo opportunities for presidents and prime ministers who turn up simply to make the world think they care. The reality is that, in most cases, they have no inkling of how bad climate breakdown is set to be and little interest in finding out."

So, where do we go from here? The author of the article suggests moving away from massive, global meetings (where compromise almost always seems to mean the lowest common denominator) and move towards smaller groups of people with the authority to make decisions. Arguably, the best thing to come out of COP27 had nothing to do with the COP process, itself – China and the U.S. agreed to resume working bilaterally on this issue. Given that they collectively emit close to 40% of greenhouse gas emissions, if that small group of two can decide to do something, and then can secure the buy-in of the EU, we might make some meaningful progress:

"What is needed is an apparatus that is less cumbersome and more manageable – something leaner and meaner that zeros in on the most critical aspects of the climate crisis, that does its work largely hidden from the glare of the media, and which presents a less obvious honey pot to the busy bees of the fossil fuel sector. One way forward, then, could be to establish a number of smaller bodies, each addressing one of the key issues – notably energy, agriculture, deforestation, transport, loss and damage, and perhaps others."

And, essentially, these would be standing committees, rather than very large groups of constantly shifting people who meet one week a year in a different location, each time:

"Such bodies would operate full-time, liaising with one another and perhaps coming together a few times a year. Ideally, they would be made up of representatives from both developed and majority-world countries. In direct contact with representatives of national governments, part of their remit would be to negotiate agreements that are workable, legally binding, and which actually do the job – whether reversing deforestation, cutting methane emissions, or drawing down coal usage. As and when all terms and conditions are agreed, these could be validated and signed off by world leaders as a matter of course and without the need for the ballyhoo of a global conference."

As they say, what's the worst that could happen? You could argue 'global climate calamity,' but that is the direction we are heading in with the current arrangement.

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

The big takeaway from COP27? These climate conferences just aren't working

By Bill McGuire

November 20, 2022

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/20/big-takeaway-cop27-climate-conferences-arent-working

Strategic CSR - Climate dissonance

The article in the url below is making a nuanced distinction between "climate denial" and "climate dissonance." The author is arguing that we have progressed (or should that be, regressed) from denial to dissonance and that this shift is consequential because it captures the gap between what corporations are now promising, and what they are delivering (now or into the future):

"… this basic phenomenon, in which powerful people make climate pledges that turn out to wildly outrace their genuine commitments, has now become so pervasive that it begins to look less like venality by any one person or institution and more like a new political grammar. The era of climate denial has been replaced with one plagued by climate promises that no one seems prepared to keep."

In other words, the author is acknowledging that few corporate leaders can now get away with ignoring climate change or not at least pretending to do anything about it. The trouble is that this denial has been replaced with promises to act that remain essentially meaningless:

"For years, when advocates lamented the 'emissions gap,' they meant the gulf between what scientists said was necessary and what public and private actors were willing to promise. Today that gap has almost entirely disappeared; it has been estimated that global pledges, if enacted in full, would most likely bring the planet 1.8 degrees Celsius of warming — in line with the Paris agreement's stated target of 'well below two degrees' and in range of its more ambitious goal of 1.5 degrees. But it has been replaced by another gap, between what has been pledged and what is being done. In June, a global review of net-zero pledges by corporations found that fully half of them had laid out no concrete plan for getting there; and though 83 percent of emissions and 91 percent of global G.D.P. is now covered by national net-zero pledges, no country — not a single one, including the 187 that signed the Paris agreement — is on track for emissions reductions in line with a 1.5 degree target, according to the watchdog group Climate Action Tracker."

But, because the embrace of apparent action is so comprehensive, the effect is to introduce ambiguity in the name of clarity:

"Five years ago, the stakes were clear, to those looking closely, but so were the forces of denial and inaction, which helps explain the global crescendo of moral fervor that appeared to peak just before the pandemic. Today the rhetorical war has largely been won, but the outlook grows a lot more confusing when everyone agrees to agree, paying at least lip service to the existential rhetoric of activists."

It seems we have entered a more dangerous phase (confirmed by the failure of the recent COP27 meeting), where we now kid ourselves that we are doing something, when we are no better off than before all these pledges were made. In fact, the author argues, we are worse off than during that time:

"Rhetoric this unmoored from reality is often called disinformation. It is also simply disorienting — especially given how many narratives have been layered over our picture of the post-warming future. … But even among those who take the inevitability of warming seriously, there's also a lot of normalization and compartmentalization, which allow many of the world's most privileged to regard climate suffering as distant, if tragic."

Kidding ourselves that we are doing something, it turns out, is likely worse than deliberately doing nothing:

"We nod our heads reflexively about proposals to plant a trillion trees, without realizing that doing so, as climate scientists like David Ho have pointed out, would set the carbon clock back by less than eight months at current emissions levels. (Plus, trees burn, unfortunately; last year, in fact, the carbon released by wildfires exceeded that released by any of the world's economies except the United States and China)."

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

What's Worse: Climate Denial or Climate Hypocrisy?

By David Wallace-Wells

June 26, 2022

The New York Times Sunday Magazine

Late Edition – Final

14-15

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/opinion/environment/climate-hypocrisy-larry-fink.html

 

Strategic CSR - Chick-fil-A

The article in the url below is superficially a story about the local nuisance being caused by a popular fast-food drive-through lane, during the COVID lockdown:

"Business has boomed for Chick-fil-A franchisee Travis Collins during the pandemic, thanks to surging appetite for chicken sandwiches from his drive-through window. Now he's throwing the works at controlling the lines of cars spilling onto surrounding streets. The city council in this affluent coastal city has proposed declaring his drive-through a public nuisance. Neighbors and city officials say customers hungry enough to brave the crowded lot for Chick-n-Strips or the signature sandwich of chicken with pickles on a buttered bun have caused so many traffic jams, bus delays and hazards on the city's main drag that something must be done."

Apparently, this is not a problem that is restricted to California, but is more common to Chick-fil-A's across the country:

"Businesses in Toledo, Ohio, and Beaumont, Texas, have filed lawsuits against Chick-fil-A franchises over mushrooming drive-through queues. In the Township of Union, N.J., a judge ordered another Chick-fil-A location to temporarily close its drive-through, after a competing restaurant next door said its customers couldn't get around the line."

And, it is officially, a thing:

"In a 14-page memorandum titled 'Traffic Conditions Associated with Chick-fil-A Queuing' sent to city officials in January, Santa Barbara's chief transportation engineer, Derrick Bailey, wrote that the drive-through snarled traffic for an average of 70 minutes on weekdays and 92 minutes on Saturdays. The backup on the busiest day of the study period was 2½ hours."

The article offers no real explanation as to why this is such a problem at Chick-fil-A restaurants, other than hinting that the current "labor shortages" are resulting in a slower service. Implicit in the story, however, is that this is happening at Chick-fil-A and not other fast-food restaurants, which results from the greater popularity of this chain.

Whenever I see a story about Chick-fil-A, however, I can't help but think of the values at play. In short, it is a complicated company – on the one hand, a poster-child for an era (not so long ago) of homophobia in the U.S. (see Strategic CSR – Chick-fil-A); on the other hand, it is also a company that treats its employees extremely well and has a progressive franchise model (only one store per franchisee).

So, what does this say about the importance of values to a company? Or, perhaps more importantly, the importance of values to the company's stakeholders who, in theory, are seeking meaning in their interactions with the company? How much are they aware of the values that define this company (and that their support is a tacit endorsement), or are they simply thinking in more shallow terms (I like the sandwiches, or I want a job, etc.). There are three options, as far as I can see. People either:

1. Don't know.
2. Know and don't care.
3. Agree.

This seems relatively important because, if it is #1 or #2, it is harder to make the argument that values matter to stakeholders, and there is value to firms of publicly stating their values and taking sides on issues of social relevance and importance. If, in fact, stakeholders don't know or care to find out (or, worse, know and don't care), then the more traditional model of CEOs striving to remain 'neutral' in the social battles of the day will be a missed opportunity for society to progress.

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Chick-fil-A's Drive-Through Crowds Get Neighbors Squawking

By Christine Mai-Duc

April 25, 2022

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

A1, A10

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chick-fil-a-santa-barbara-drive-through-in-n-out-11650718828

Strategic CSR - Greenhushing

The article in the url below discusses a term I had not seen previously – greenhushing:

"First, there was greenwashing — a term referring to deceptive marketing campaigns and other performative gestures by companies to make consumers and investors believe that they are environmentally responsible. Now, there is greenhushing. And it's also a problem. Firms engage in greenhushing when they are actively working to reduce their carbon footprint, produce less waste, manufacture less plastic, and build greater sustainability, but they don't tell anyone about their efforts."

While this is an interesting term, it is not a particularly surprising phenomenon. I have seen a similar approach to sustainability adopted by Walmart, for example, although the reason the firm does not advertise its (often industry leading) efforts is because of the perception that green products are more expensive (even when that is not the case). Crucially, the firm does not want the perception of higher prices among its customers to undermine its low cost strategy:

"It seems like a contradiction for companies to be 'doing good while doing well' and not blasting the news across every corner of the internet."

Frustrating. It only seems "like a contradiction" if you do not put much thought into what is meant by the phrase "doing good while doing well." In reality, it is stakeholder pressure that is determinative. The cornerstone of "doing good while doing well" suggests there is a level of "good" that is objectively known and agreed upon. But this is clearly ridiculous – what constitutes good behavior is both highly contested and a moving target. Thus, if a firm is feeling pressured by one stakeholder group (say, investors or the government) to perform in a certain way, while the opposite pressure is being applied by another stakeholder group (say, customers concerned about low prices), then it is immediately obvious why a firm would want to manipulate the message it conveys to these different groups by saying different things. As the article continues to note:

"If a company specifically states its ESG goals and reports its progress in hitting those targets, it could face pushback from stakeholders who find the plans aren't ambitious enough. … On the other hand, it could also face backlash from investors and politicians who believe ESG efforts undermine profits or run counter to prevailing values. For example, oil-rich Texas recently banned its municipalities from doing business with banks that have ESG policies against fossil fuels and firearms."

Another reason firms keep quiet about ESG, of course, could be that they know the foundations on which much of it is built are shaky:

"One of the biggest challenges for firms seeking to improve their environmental, social, and corporate governance is a lack of standards across those dimensions. Globally, there is no single method of data collection or measurement, which often leads to confusion — and greater incentive not to share information."

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Greenhushing: Why Some Firms Keep Quiet About ESG

By Angie Basiouny

November 8, 2022

Knowledge @ Wharton

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/greenhushing-why-some-firms-keep-quiet-about-esg/

 

Strategic CSR - Carl Sagan

The video in the url below was recommended to me by YouTube. It's all-knowing algorithm thought I would be interested to watch Carl Sagan (a household name here in the U.S. from a different era when science and scientists were respected) testify to Congress in December, 1985 about climate change:

https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI

It is amazing to see how eloquently he described the greenhouse gas effect in a way that non-experts would clearly understand. In other words, there are many frustrating things about the video, but the most frustrating is that it is 1985 and science was able to articulate to non-scientists that this is a problem and it is only going to get worse.

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Strategic CSR - Nietzsche

The article in the url below made me smile. It is a review of a recently published book, 'If Nietzsche Were a Narwhal.' The book is a philosopher's perspective on human intelligence and, perhaps not surprisingly, the author is not impressed. As the reviewer neatly summarizes for us:

"The following bit of black humor isn't drawn from Mr. Gregg's book but summarizes much of its argument. After a worldwide nuclear holocaust, the few surviving amoeba-like creatures hold a meeting at which they decide to try evolving again. But before they do so, they together make a solemn vow: 'This time, no brains!'"

The kernel of the book's idea comes from the author's analysis of Nietzsche, who was both liberated and constrained by his own intelligence:

"'If Nietzsche Were a Narwal' begins, appropriately enough, with the great depressive himself, who had plenty of brains. 'Nietzsche,' Mr. Gregg writes, 'both wished he was as stupid as a cow so he wouldn't have to contemplate existence, and pitied cows for being so stupid that they couldn't contemplate existence.'"

The author builds on this foundation, questioning the value of the key characteristic that supposedly defines human intelligence – an awareness of our own eventual demise:

"Mr. Gregg maintains, for example, that death awareness—widely considered a hallmark of human intelligence—isn't all it's cracked up to be. While the human understanding of time and gift of foresight have their perks, when it comes to death, is ignorance bliss? Mr. Gregg thinks so. 'The day-to-day consequences of death wisdom'—grief, dread, nihilism, mental and emotional anguish—'really do suck,' he writes. 'I believe that animals … do not suffer as much as we do for the simple reason that they cannot imagine their deaths.'"

The author expands on this core idea, illustrating exactly how we can be our own worst enemies:

"We humans are besotted by intelligence, especially our own. And yet 'intelligence is not the miracle of evolution we like to think it is. … The planet does not love us as much as we love our intellect.' In fact, 'our many intellectual accomplishments are currently on track to produce our own extinction, which is exactly how evolution gets rid of adaptations that suck.'"

In this sense, perhaps the sub-title of the book is more revealing: 'What Animal Intelligence Reveals About Human Stupidity.' The point can be applied broadly:

"As for ethics and morality, Mr. Gregg notes that, while human cognitive skills 'have molded the human moral sense from the clay of animal normativity,' our moral reasoning 'often leads to more death, violence, and destruction than we find in the normative behavior of nonhuman animals.' Animals, not unlike humans, typically have norm-based systems, but deviations rarely result, as they do with us, in mass death and suffering."

As the reviewer concludes:

"It is startling to consider that our very intelligence may have made humans no better morally, even no better off physically, than other species. Indeed, by many measures of evolutionary success (number of individuals, persistence over time, likelihood of persisting into the future), Homo sapiens is doing poorly compared to many other species. And not benefiting the Earth, either."

The author's own conclusion covers similar ground:

"Mr. Gregg concludes, glumly but effectively, that 'there's good reason to tone down our smugness. Because, depending on where we go from here, human intelligence may just be the stupidest thing that has ever happened.'"

For comparison, there is another review of the same book in the article in the second url below.

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Big Brains, Big Problems

By David P. Barash

July 21, 2022

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

A15

https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-nietzsche-were-a-narwhal-review-big-brains-big-problems-11658355791

Sorry, but We're Not as Smart as We Think

By Jennifer Szalai

August 11, 2022

The New York Times

Late Edition – Final

C2

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/10/books/if-nietzsche-were-a-narwhal-justin-gregg.html

 

Strategic CSR - Second chances

For a while now, I have been interested in the idea of "second-chance" employment. Such campaigns have arisen in response to application forms at many companies in the U.S. that ask whether the applicant has ever committed a felony crime. If so, the applicant is legally required to check a box, at which point most companies file their application in the trash. Gradually, companies are beginning to recognize that doing so might mean they are missing something – first, because the idea of punishment after a crime should be primarily to rehabilitate and, if someone has served their sentence, then (in theory, at least) they have paid for their mistake and should not continue to be punished. Second, and more importantly, I think, to give a second chance to someone who routinely has doors slammed in their face is to tap into potential others are ignoring, primarily because it is a way to build trust, respect, and loyalty because of the opportunity that is being extended.

One of my favorite companies, Dave's Killer Bread (DKB), is an active proponent of second-chance employment (due largely to the colorful history of the "Dave" of DKB); so much so that somewhere around 50% of employees at the company have been hired under the program. As the company proclaims on its website:

"The Dave's Killer Bread Foundation was created in 2015 to inspire and equip other businesses to adopt Second Chance Employment. A lack of information or understanding about employing people with criminal backgrounds can make businesses hesitant to explore this option, and we're here to change that. We believe that in the long term, Second Chance Employment has the power to reduce the negative impact of recidivism in America, and we work to educate organizations on the importance of employing this part of our population. Find out more at dkbfoundation.org."

And, as the company notes on its Foundation website, this is not a minor issue:

"Every year, 650,000 Americans return to society from incarceration to find themselves locked out of gainful employment opportunities. People with criminal records were 5x more likely to be unemployed in 2019 than the rest of the nation."

As the article in the url below notes, other companies are beginning to catch on to the potential advantages of a more progressive approach on this issue:

"A labor shortage has pushed more employers to recruit employees who have served prison time. In recent years, small businesses and big U.S. companies including banks and pharmacy chains say they have recognized that so-called second-chance hiring offers a chance to ease societal inequities. It also helps them find more workers in a tight job market."

The barriers people in this situation face are significant:

"Finding steady, formal employment has long been a challenge for people who have been convicted of crimes. Job applications often ask about felony convictions, even though there have been efforts across the country to ban such a question. After that, a background check may flag a job seeker's criminal history, potentially invalidating the application. These roadblocks contribute to higher unemployment rates for formerly incarcerated people. Their unemployment rate was estimated at over 27%, according to a 2018 report from the Prison Policy Initiative. … just having an arrest record can hurt people's employment prospects, even if charges were dropped."

Thankfully, the value of supporting causes like this is beginning to spread as the idea gains support/legitimacy:

"The Second Chance Business Coalition—a group of companies that work to share best practices on hiring people with a criminal background—was formed in 2021 with 29 companies and now has more than 40. Among those are JP Morgan Chase & Co., American Airlines Group Inc., AT&T Inc. and CVS Health Corp."

And, in some case, with meaningful impact:

"About one-tenth of JPMorgan Chase's new hires last year, roughly 4,300 people, had criminal records, according to Nan Gibson, executive director for JPMorgan Chase's PolicyCenter. Many of them are placed into teller positions and other jobs at bank branches, said Michelle Kuranty, the company's global head of talent acquisition sourcing."

 

What would be useful and interesting, is to know how these employees perform relative to others after being hired. I suspect they perform at a higher level and remain loyal to the organization for longer, but I presume it is privacy concerns that prevent firms from tracking these data:

 

"The company doesn't track these workers after they are hired, said Ms. Kuranty."

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

More Businesses Try 'Second-Chance' Hiring

By Allison Prang

October 10, 2022

The Wall Street Journal

Late Edition – Final

A3

https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-businesses-want-to-hire-people-with-criminal-records-amid-tight-job-market-11665173965

Strategic CSR - Warning labels

The article in the url below asks an interesting question:

"What if gas station pumps warned drivers about climate change the way cigarette packs warn smokers about lung cancer?"

Apparently, they do in Cambridge, MA:

"Drive up to any gas pump in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and you'll see a yellow label slightly bigger than a greeting card. In red lettering, it tells drivers, 'WARNING: Burning Gasoline, Diesel and Ethanol has major consequences on human health and on the environment including contributing to climate change.'"

These labels are the first of their kind in the U.S. They were originally installed in early 2021, and they are not subtle:

The theory motivating the idea for the labels places the responsibility for action on each of us, as individuals:

"'The fight to reverse climate change requires that everyone take action to change their behavior,' the council noted in its policy order for the labels, 'and the City must underscore the fact that each individual's behavior can make an impact on the environment and on public health.'"

The idea first appeared in Vancouver, Canada, but was more of a muted effort:

"North Vancouver ended up agreeing to the idea first, and in 2016 became the first Canadian city to put climate labels on its pumps. But local officials opted not to go with a graphic warning about climate change proposed by activists and instead chose a label that the energy industry helped design. The word 'warning' doesn't appear. Instead, the labels state 'Reducing Emissions Help Fight Climate Change' and also offer tips on how to do so through things like maintaining tire pressure and not idling your car."

Perhaps not surprisingly, Scandinavia is making faster progress on this issue:

"In Sweden, a campaign to put climate labels on gas pumps launched in 2013 and was passed by parliament in 2018. Now color-coded labels can be found in most fueling stations across the country; they compare the carbon intensity of fossil fuels, biodiesel, and electric vehicle chargers."

The comparison with health warnings on cigarettes is obvious, but the effectiveness of such labels is unknown:

"Perhaps the closest parallel are the warning labels on cigarettes; but even there, the effectiveness remains unclear. 'Do the warnings on cigarette packs actually prevent people from smoking? We don't know,' [Patricia Nolan, the Cambridge City Council member sponsoring the labeling effort] said. For her, the point of the gas labels is 'educating the public. The science is very clear: burning gasoline hurts people's health and the environment.'"

Take care

David

David Chandler

Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation (6e)

© Sage Publications, 2023

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler6e 

Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/

The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/

Where Are All the Climate Warnings on Labels on Gas Pumps?

By Zahra Hirji

July 19, 2022

Bloomberg Businessweek

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-19/where-are-all-the-climate-warning-labels-on-gas-pumps