The CSR Newsletters are a freely-available resource generated as a dynamic complement to the textbook, Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation.

To sign-up to receive the CSR Newsletters regularly during the fall and spring academic semesters, e-mail author David Chandler at david.chandler@ucdenver.edu.

Showing posts with label pollution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pollution. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

Strategic CSR - Diapers

 
This is the last CSR Newsletter of the Fall semester.
Happy Holidays and I will see you in the new year!


The article in the url below argues that consumerism (in particular, our "addiction to disposability"), enabled by the development of single-use plastics, has affected our society in many ways  some of which less obviously come to mind:

"In 1957, 92 percent of American children were potty-trained by 18 months of age. Four decades later, that number had dropped to just 4 percent. Why are we potty-training our children so much later than our grandparents did?"

It turns out that we have corporations to thank for that  specifically, companies that developed, and then improved, disposable diapers:

"Made from plastic and cellulose, these products have been refined over several decades to be more absorbent, slimmer and less leaky."

And of course, our preference for convenience (in this case, the understandable desire to avoid washing re-uesable diapers) has inflicted a heavy price:

"Such convenience comes at a heavy environmental price. Between 2011 and 2018, disposable diapers were among the 25 most littered items on the seafloor and among the 40 most littered items on land, one study found. In the United States alone, more than 18 billion diapers are discarded every year, creating an enormous drain on natural resources."

The longer it takes for children to be potty trained, the more disposable diapers they will wear (and will be sold by companies like P&G). There are lots of revealing examples in the article of how our shift to a disposable society was engineered by companies that had every incentive to sell us as many plastics as possible. The result?

"Globally, the equivalent of more than one garbage truck of plastic waste ends up in the ocean every minute."

As well as environmental, the article argues that the social impact (cost?) is as great:

"Over the past century, disposable plastics undeniably have made our lives easier in many ways. They have also quietly and profoundly reshaped the ways we eat, shop, raise children and understand hygiene and progress. … Cooking skills have declined. Sit-down family meals are less common. Fast fashion, enabled by synthetic plastic fibers, is encouraging compulsive consumption and waste."

A possible antidote?

"Large French retailers have eliminated plastic for a wide range of fruit and vegetables without causing a discernible spike in food waste, and the country has forced chains like McDonald's to switch to washable dishes and cups for people dining in. Aarhus, Denmark, has signed dozens of cafes and other venues up for a reusable cup system that has prevented over a million cups from being thrown away since its inception early last year. Europe is embedding reuse and reduction into law and infrastructure."

Take care
David

David Chandler
© 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/


Throwaway Plastic Has Corrupted Us
By Saabira Chaudhuri
September 7, 2025
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
SR 8-9

Tuesday, August 26, 2025

Strategic CSR - Plastics

Over the summer, you may have read about the breakdown in talks that were intended to produce a global treaty on how to minimize plastics waste. The unbridgeable gap was formed between opponents of plastic, who wanted to ban the most toxic chemicals that cause human harm, and supporters of plastic, who wanted to focus on better waste collection and recycling. Doing both does not appear to have been an option considered by the participants, despite the urgency, as reported in the article in the url below:

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates that, without global action to curb plastic pollution, plastic production will grow by 70 percent between 2020 and 2040, totaling 736 million tons a year by the end of that period. Overall as of 2020, less than 10 percent of global plastic waste was estimated to have been recycled, with the rest disposed of in landfills, incinerated or released into the environment."

The article covers many of the details; it also contains a photo that I found particularly striking (and depressing). See if you can spot where the edges of the boats end and the 'water' begins (with 'water' really being just a sea of floating plastic):


I wonder if that is our future, coming to a waterway near you. The tagline accompanying the image in the article is revealing:

"Boaters collect recyclable plastic from the polluted Citarum River in West Java, Indonesia, last year. The United States has turned against production caps on plastic."

Take care
David

David Chandler
© 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/


Plastic Talks Collapse As Oil States Oppose Broad Pollution Treaty
By Hiroko Tabuchi
August 16, 2025
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
A8
 

Thursday, February 6, 2025

Strategic CSR - Mirrors

Here is a heartening quote from the EU that was in the Green Daily newsletter by Bloomberg, last summer:

"32.5%: How much pollution has dropped in the EU from 1990 to 2022, even as the economy grew by 67%."

It counters the unhelpful narrative in the article in the url below, that economic growth and climate damage are positively correlated. In reality, what is important is the collective set of values and priorities in our societies. That is what will determine the behavior of corporations – if we want sustainability, then companies will deliver it for us; if we don't, then we cannot blame companies for more damage. We love to anthropomorphize organizations, but it is only humans who are capable of making complex decisions, weighing up multiple variables (including future consequences) – companies are mirrors that reflect those decisions. We get the companies we deserve; just like we get the politicians we deserve – they are functions of the decisions that we make.

Take care
David

David Chandler
© 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/


Shrink the Economy, Save the World?
By Jennifer Szalai
June 11, 2024
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
C1, C4
 

Thursday, April 25, 2024

Strategic CSR - Air

I found this quote from the article in the url, below, shocking:

"The average person can go up to two months without food, three days without water, but only a few minutes without air. Breathable air is essential to life. Yet a new analysis found that last year, only 10 countries and 9% of global cities had air quality that met World Health Organization guidelines for harmful fine-particle, or PM2.5, pollution."

To be clear, what is shocking is not that air matters, of course, but that so few countries have what the WHO considers to be an acceptable minimum quality.

Take care
David

David Chandler
© 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/


Only 10 Countries Had Healthy Air Quality in 2023, Report Find
By Kendra Pierre-Louis
March 18, 2024
Bloomberg
 

Wednesday, November 8, 2023

Strategic CSR - Lego

The article in the url below reflects a company making a sustainability-related decision based on an honest assessment of its ability to make a difference, rather than the appearance of making a difference:

"Lego is scrapping plans to make its toy bricks from recycled plastic bottles after determining that switching to the material would result in it producing higher carbon emissions.

Importantly, the company is not giving up, just recognizing that the technology is not there, at present:

"Lego has long sought to replace its petroleum-based bricks with more sustainable materials. It tried making pieces from corn, but that resulted in bricks that were too soft. A wheat-based brick didn't look right. Bricks made from other materials over the years proved too hard to pull apart or lost their grip. Its latest effort was focused on recycled plastic bottles. The company found a one-liter plastic PET bottle could produce around 10 of its classic 2×4-stud bricks. The company has been testing bricks made from the material for their quality, durability and "clutch power"—the name Lego gives to the brick's ability to lock together with other bricks."

The challenge:

"Lego said it is abandoning the effort because it found that scaling up production wouldn't cut the company's carbon emissions: The extra steps involved in production would use more energy and manufacturing facilities would require retooling. … The company said it would instead continue with testing and developing Lego bricks made from a range of alternative sustainable materials, including other recycled plastics."

This reminds me of a phenomenon I have increasingly experienced when I meet people working in the CSR-related space. This is no doubt related to my advanced age and growing frustration, but I have taken to asking the people I meet whether they are interested in making money or interested in making a difference. It is obvious that there are plenty of ways to make money, via the perception of action or meaning. All the work being done in the market for ESG-related investment products is a great example – a whole industry has grown around consumer demand for more sustainable funds, with no discernible impact (as far as I can see) on either corporate behavior or, more important, actual carbon emissions. Nevertheless, there are plenty of people willing to dive into the space, because money is there to be made. When I push these people who I meet on the issue, 9 times out of 10 I don't hear from them anymore. My takeaway is that they are in it for the money, which is fine (people need to earn a living and markets offer a powerful motivator for change, when directed appropriately), but not conversations I want to waste time on. What is interesting about the Lego example is that it suggests the intention to make a difference, even if it means taking a short-term hit to perceptions (i.e., withdrawing a proposal that appears sustainable, on the surface).

Take care
David

David Chandler
© 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/


Lego's Latest Effort to Avoid Oil-Based Plastic Hits a Brick Wall
By Dominic Chopping
September 26, 2023
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
B3
 

Tuesday, October 31, 2023

Strategic CSR - Accountability

A lot of companies have made a lot of promises, in recent years, regarding their environmental performance. Most of them revolve around a net-zero target, usually by 2050. I have generally been skeptical about these promises – they are often made without any specifics (suggesting these companies do not really know what attaining "net-zero" would actually require). And, of course, the easiest promise from a CEO concerning a high-stakes bet is one where the delivery deadline is well beyond their tenure (or even lifespan). Most CEOs have no qualms about committing some distant successor to a target, especially since they will not be around to be held accountable.

So, where are we with all of these promises? The article in the url below contains some updates and, perhaps unsurprisingly, we are not where we need to be. For example, McDonald's:

"Five years ago McDonald's said it planned to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than a third in parts of its operations by 2030. A few years later, it pledged to be 'net zero' … by 2050. But in its most recent report, McDonald's disclosed that things were moving in the wrong direction: The company's emissions in 2021 were 12 percent higher than its 2015 baseline."

Companies in the restaurant/food industries appear particularly challenged by the promises they themselves made:

"McDonald's is hardly alone. An examination of various climate-related reports and filings for 20 of the world's largest food and restaurant companies reveals that more than half have not made any progress on their emissions reduction goals or have reported rising emissions levels. The bulk of emissions — in many cases more than 90 percent — come from the companies' supply chains. In other words, the cows and wheat used to make burgers and cereal."

There is PepsiCo:

"At PepsiCo, which began setting targets to reduce emissions in 2015, emissions in its supply chain are up 7 percent from its baseline, according to its 2022 climate report."

And Chipotle:

"Chipotle, which set a goal of halving its emissions by 2030, reported a 26 percent surge in supply chain and other emissions in its 2022 report."

How about Starbucks?

"For 2022, for example, Starbucks reported a 12 percent increase in its total emissions from 2019 levels."

Mars appears to be a more positive story, however:

"Mars said it had reduced its total emissions, including its supply chain, by 8 percent from 2015 levels while increasing its revenue 60 percent. The company's goal is to cut its total 2015 emissions by 50 percent by 2030 and to be net zero by 2050."

As Mars' Chief Sustainability Officer puts it, commenting on the performance of its many competitors:

"'We've had five years of companies making promises and being celebrated for the quality of their promises and not their performance.'"

Take care
David

David Chandler
© 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/


Emissions are Taking Wrong Turn for Some
By Julie Creswell
September 25, 2023
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
B1, B3
 

Tuesday, October 3, 2023

Strategic SCR - Space junk

Not satisfied with just polluting the Earth, the article in the url below demonstrates how we are also doing a great job of polluting space:

"The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued its first fine to a company that violated its anti-space debris rule, the commission announced Monday."

Unfortunately, the size of the fine is not going to act too much as a deterrent, but surely a mark of our progress that we are causing an equal amount of damage to the cosmos as to our own home:

"Dish Network has to pay $150,000 to the commission over its failure to de-orbit its EchoStar-7 satellite which has been in space for more than two decades. Instead of properly de-orbiting the satellite, Dish sent it into a 'disposal orbit' at an altitude low enough to pose orbital debris risk."

I suppose the only thing more arrogant than Dish Network casually polluting space, is the FCC assuming it is the correct authority to police space:

"'As satellite operations become more prevalent and the space economy accelerates, we must be certain that operators comply with their commitments,' said Enforcement bureau chief Loyaan A Egal, in the statement announcing the Dish settlement. 'This is a breakthrough settlement, making very clear the FCC has strong enforcement authority and capability to enforce its vitally important space debris rules.'"

And, guess what? The problem is only going to get worse and will hamper future progress:

"'Right now there are thousands of metric tons of orbital debris in the air above – and it is going to grow,' FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel said in a 2022 statement that accompanied the announcement of the rule. 'We need to address it. Because if we don't, this space junk could constrain new opportunities.'"

Who knew that pollution was such an impediment?

Take care
David

David Chandler
© 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/


US government issues first-ever space debris penalty to Dish Network
By Abené Clayton
October 2, 2023
The Guardian
 

Thursday, April 20, 2023

Strategic CSR - Bill Nye

For those of you in the U.S. who grew up learning about science from Bill Nye, I have a couple of videos for you that reflect his (public) position on climate change. There is the optimistic Bill Nye, who has been contracted by Coca-Cola to sell the idea that we are just around the corner from a perfect solution to the problem of waste:


This video/ad was reviewed in the article in the url below, with the author denouncing the relationship as a pretty straightforward incidence of greenwashing:

"Bad news for everyone who loved watching Bill Nye the Science Guy during middle school science class: your fave is problematic. This week, Coca-Cola, one of the world's biggest plastic polluters, teamed up with TV's favorite scientist for a campaign to create a 'world without waste,' a joke of a corporate greenwashing campaign."

Needless to say, the assessment of the author is that Bill is, at best, presenting a highly selective element of a much more complicated issue:

"The video is, on the surface, an accurate depiction of the process of recycling a beverage bottle. The problem lies in what recycling can actually do. … Most of those plastics can only be reused once or twice before ending up in a landfill. Nye, for all his talk of science on TV, should know this. Over recycling's 60-year history, less than 10% of plastic that has been produced has ever been recycled. And while in theory, PET—the type of plastic that makes bottles—can be recycled more times than other types of plastic, that's not usually what happens. Virgin plastic is, simply put, cheaper to make into things like bottles than recycled plastic. Less than 30% of plastic bottles are recycled in the U.S., and a lot of that stock is turned not into other bottles, but 'downcycled' into other things, like filler and fabric. These products, in turn, can't be recycled again. The plastic ends up in landfills."

Then, there is the more attention-grabbing (and realistic) assessment of the situation in a short video Bill recorded as part of a John Oliver segment on climate change:


I am guessing that the John Oliver video did not pay nearly as well as the Coca-Cola video, and I'll leave you to determine which one you think is the message we need to be sending from one of the most respected public voices on science.

Take care
David

David Chandler
© 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/


Bill Nye, the Sellout Guy
By Molly Taft
April 7, 2022
Gizmodo
 

Tuesday, April 18, 2023

Strategic CSR - Tires

The article in the url below demonstrates to me how basic the current conversation is about environmental pollution, and the layers of complexity we are yet to even consider, let alone begin to tackle:

"The Tyre Collective does not yet have a name for its device. Hanson Cheng, one of the London-based startup's three co-founders, calls it a 'box.' Built to attach behind the wheel of a car, truck, van or bus, it's designed to capture emissions from an oft-overlooked source: tires. Every vehicle sheds tiny bits of its tires as it rolls, but 'where the rubber meets the road' is a bit of a misnomer: The tires on most passenger vehicles contain little natural rubber. Instead, they're made from a stew of petrochemicals, particles of which ultimately wind up in soil, air, waterways and oceans."

And, the amount of pollution tires create is not insignificant (see also Strategic CSR – Eco-activism):

"The International Union for Conservation of Nature pegs tires as the second leading source of microplastic pollution in oceans, and one 2017 study found a global per capita average of .81 kilograms in tire emissions per year, ranging from .23 kg per year in India to 4.7 kg (roughly 10 pounds) in the US. That may seem minor stacked up against the nearly 300 pounds in plastic waste the average American generates each year, but microplastics are tiny by definition — and an insidious source of toxins that researchers are only beginning to understand. 'When we talk about zero emissions, a lot of that conversation is about electric vehicles,' says Cheng, 30. 'But there's a whole world of non-exhaust emissions that also needs to be addressed.'"

We are like cats distracted by a laser pointer – we focus on one thing to the exclusion of other things, thinking we are making progress when we are really not even scratching the surface. The danger of this is that progress is too slow, but also that progress made on one dimension causes problems in other areas where we are paying less attention:

"Switching to electric cars helps to lower carbon emissions — even after accounting for manufacturing and charging batteries — but it actually exacerbates the problem of tire emissions. EVs typically weigh more and accelerate faster than their gas-burning counterparts, both of which add to tire wear. … 'Most of these EVs are big monstrous things, so it's perfectly intuitive that they will be chewing up tires faster,' says Nick Molden, founder and CEO of the UK-based research shop Emissions Analytics. Results from the company's latest road tests, [last year], show that under normal driving conditions a gas car sheds about 73 milligrams per kilometer from four new tires. A comparable EV, the company estimates, sheds an additional 15 milligrams per kilometer, or about 20% more."

The challenge of unforeseen consequences is enhanced when we develop any particular innovation in a vacuum, without investigating the potential ripple effects of the change:

"One landmark study makes the potential stakes clear. In 2020, researchers in Washington state solved a decades-old mystery of why storm runoff was causing mass deaths of coho salmon: 6PPD, a preservative commonly used in car tires. When exposed to sun and air, 6PPD transforms into a chemical called 6PPD-quinone, which turns out to be highly toxic to coho salmon — causing them to circle, gasp at the surface and then die within hours."

The goal for the Tyre Collective is to collect tire residue at the point of emission, by way of the device they have created:

"In the laboratory, Tyre Collective's device pulled in 60% of airborne emissions by mass, but real-world implementation is proving more challenging. The company is currently testing a prototype on a pair of delivery vans in London, where it's so far gathering around a fifth of emissions. The Tyre Collective's plan is to begin retrofitting the devices on delivery and bus fleets and, eventually, for EV manufacturers to integrate the technology into their cars — doing for tire emissions what the catalytic converter did for the tailpipe. Cartridges full of tire emissions could then be emptied at collection points as part of routine vehicle service and reused in new tires, soles of shoes and other products."

But that, in itself, is not a solution. That only happens when we encourage the collection of the waste, widespread adoption of the technology, and an ability to recycle what is collected:

"'There's a need to create a circular loop around this waste,' says Cheng. 'Otherwise, we're going to all this effort to capture it for it to be released back into landfills.'"

Take care
David

David Chandler
© 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/


When Driving, Tires Emit Pollution. And EVs Make the Problem Worse
By Ira Boudway
September 2, 2022
Bloomberg Green
 

Tuesday, March 28, 2023

Strategic CSR - Natural capital

The article in the url below looks like an interesting experiment. It is a reaction against the idea of GDP as a meaningful measure of a country's economic output; in particular, because it does such a poor job of accounting for "the full economic costs of depleting America's natural assets":

"[Last summer] the White House unveiled a 15-year plan for an ambitious—albeit wonkish—environmental initiative. Its Office of Science and Technology Policy and a dozen other government agencies aim to develop natural-capital accounts that record changes in America's stock of natural resources, and quantify losses. Armed with new data, they plan to create a single statistic, alongside GDP, that rates how the country's resources are faring."

This project is starting immediately ("the first numbers are expected as early as [2023]") and will continue to evolve, with a deadline of 2036 for these measures to "become core statistics." The name for the new over-arching measure will be "Change in Natural Asset Wealth," and is quite the undertaking:

"Scientists must first measure ecological changes such as water pollution (typically tallied in parts per million for a specific pollutant), soil erosion (counting the amount of soil lost, say) and the degradation of wetlands (the area reduced). Economists must then attempt to determine prices."

The range of potential metrics seems endless, as suggested by the limited data currently being collected by the World Bank. Between 2010 and 2018, for example:

"… the value of forests and mangroves in America declined by 10%. That of ten minerals—among them copper and iron—dropped by 51%. Beekeepers have lost one-third of their colonies a year since 2006, according to Bee Informed Partnership, a non-profit group, and renewal rates fail to keep bee populations steady."

These assets are essential to the economic health of the nation (e.g., "Making electric vehicles and wind turbines would be impossible without copper"), but that does not mean assigning prices is easy. Current methods seem less than satisfactory:

"Some, like timber, are traded in cash markets, which allows researchers to set their worth as the dollar amount people pay for them. For more complicated [assets], like rivers or mountain ranges, economists survey people to gauge how much they are willing to spend to preserve them, or how far they will travel to access them."

Nevertheless, this is essential work that is already being pursued globally – e.g., the UN Environment Programme "now tracks broad measures of natural capital in 163 countries," and the article also notes that previous administrations in the U.S. attempted something similar, although political ideology with changes in administrations derailed those earlier efforts – shifts that have already proven costly:

"Eli Fenichel, an assistant director at the Office of Science and Technology Policy, who helps organize the initiative, believes that climate change would not have grown to the current crisis level had the cost of the carbon externality been tracked in official natural environmental-economic accounts early on."

Take care
David

David Chandler
© 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 Biden administration aims to quantify the costs of ecological decay
September 17, 2022
The Economist
Late Edition – Final
28-29
 

Thursday, September 15, 2022

Strategic CSR - Markets

The article in the url below injects some reality into the frothy reception that the recently passed climate bill in Washington has been receiving. In particular, it contrasts that piece of good news, with the breakdown in climate negotiations between the U.S. and China, which happened the same weekend (due to disagreements about Taiwan):

"This month's biggest climate milestones happened over one weekend. On Sunday, the US Senate approved hundreds of billions of dollars in climate and clean-energy spending. Just two days before, climate cooperation between the US and China — the world's largest economies and emitters — came to an abrupt halt."

The article is interesting, I think, because it presents the negotiations these two (largest polluting) countries had been having since COP26, in a competitive light. More specifically, it made the argument that competition between these two giant economies as to who could 'out-green' the other as essential to the planet's climate goals:

"Having the US and China feel like they're competing to do more on climate change in order to write the new global order is the strongest position the world could be in," said [Taiya Smith, a senior associate … at the environmental think tank E3G]."

To me, this reinforces the strength of market forces in propelling progress and identifying optimal outcomes (given all the usual qualifiers about imperfect markets that are required when making such a statement).

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


The US-China Rift Moves Climate Politics Into an Era of Competition
By Akshat Rathi
August 9, 2022
Bloomberg Green
 

Thursday, March 31, 2022

Strategic CSR - Plastic

The article in the url below is both hopeful and depressing at the same time. Hopeful because it suggests nature can adapt to our harmful behavior, but depressing because this reported mutation occurred in response to the damage we have already inflicted on the natural environment:

"Microbes in oceans and soils across the globe are evolving to eat plastic, according to a study. The research scanned more than 200m genes found in DNA samples taken from the environment and found 30,000 different enzymes that could degrade 10 different types of plastic."

I read the article's headline and my immediate reaction was, "oh, great, some hope" and then my second thought was, "oh, crap, we're such idiots." Nevertheless, the ability of nature to adapt is fascinating. The research is able to isolate the effects, which vary according to the location, because the evolution of the bacteria is specific to the nature of the local pollution:

"The study is the first large-scale global assessment of the plastic-degrading potential of bacteria and found that one in four of the organisms analysed carried a suitable enzyme. The researchers found that the number and type of enzymes they discovered matched the amount and type of plastic pollution in different locations."

Irrespective, we are neck-deep in plastic and need all the help we can get to reverse the damage that has been done:

"Millions of tonnes of plastic are dumped in the environment every year, and the pollution now pervades the planet, from the summit of Mount Everest to the deepest oceans. … But many plastics are currently hard to degrade and recycle. Using enzymes to rapidly break down plastics into their building blocks would enable new products to be made from old ones, cutting the need for virgin plastic production. The new research provides many new enzymes to be investigated and adapted for industrial use."

As the researchers note, the evolution is an indicator both of the scale of the problem, and the length of time we have been causing it:

"The explosion of plastic production in the past 70 years, from 2m tonnes to 380m tonnes a year, had given microbes time to evolve to deal with plastic, the researchers said."

And, of course, given the opportunity and knowledge that nature has given us, we are tweaking:

"The first bug that eats plastic was discovered in a Japanese waste dump in 2016. Scientists then tweaked it in 2018 to try to learn more about how it evolved, but inadvertently created an enzyme that was even better at breaking down plastic bottles. Further tweaks in 2020 increased the speed of degradation sixfold. Another mutant enzyme was created in 2020 by the company Carbios that breaks down plastic bottles for recycling in hours. German scientists have also discovered a bacterium that feeds on the toxic plastic polyurethane, which is usually dumped in landfills."

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Bugs across globe are evolving to eat plastic, study finds
By Damian Carrington
December 14, 2021
The Guardian
 

Wednesday, February 23, 2022

Strategic CSR - BP

The article in the url below presents BP's 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in a new light:

"The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico a dozen years ago was a human and environmental tragedy. It killed 11 people, dumped millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf, and cost BP Plc more than $65 billion in cleanup costs and damage payments. But had all that oil instead been sold and used, it would have been even deadlier and more devastating to the environment."

The author is actually quoting a tweet on this topic that went viral soon after it was posted:
 


Apparently, the argument is not only compelling, but relatively straightforward:

"The spill caused an estimated 200 million gallons of oil to flow into the Gulf of Mexico. Burning as many gallons of oil and diesel in combustion engines would have emitted over 1.4 million tons of CO, not even counting, for example, emissions from refining and transporting the oil. Translated into average lives lost due to the resulting climate change implies about 325 deaths over the course of the century, linked to higher temperatures alone. That doesn't include deaths from the fine particulate matter generated by burning that fuel, which could amount to another 350 premature deaths in a year."

Although it seems unnecessary and unrelated to the point he was trying to make, the original author was forced to add a qualification later as the tweet spread:

"Twitter being Twitter, the responses necessitated a follow-up from David: 'My point isn't that we should spill crude oil.' We shouldn't. There are plenty of other environmental costs not captured by the 11 deaths and $65 billion. The devastating impact on wildlife can only be partially reflected in any monetary damage number. Some of the oil spilled burned uncontrollably, again releasing CO. Oil that's not burned but eventually evaporates also causes plenty of environmental harm."

Needless to say:

"Alas, there is a big difference between a statistical calculation based on global damage estimates and being able to put faces and names to deaths, as to those on the Deepwater Horizon oil platform. Eleven deaths are a tragedy, while 325 statistically estimated ones are just that, a statistic."

Nevertheless, the ability to calculate a direct connection between environmental harm and human lives lost is becoming more developed and accurate:

"Thanks to rapid advances in the new field of attribution science, climate-related deaths and other damages can now be linked more directly to tons of CO emitted. Indeed, an increasing number of lawsuits are closing in on establishing a proximate cause via climate damages, but no oil company so far has been forced to pay damages linked to the burning of its products sold to customers."

The author then discusses the contextual nature of our assessment of harm/damage, and the difference between direct and indirect attribution of blame:

"[Cary Coglianese, a professor of law and political science at the University of Pennsylvania] likens the difference between climate change and the BP oil spill to that between the Covid-19 pandemic and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001: 'September 11th killed around 3,000 people,' he says. 'We had about that many Covid deaths in the U.S. yesterday alone.' More than 900,000 Americans died from Covid over the past two years, well over 5.5 million worldwide, and those are just the directly attributed deaths. 'We seem to be getting numb to this daily catastrophe,' adds Coglianese."

But, the ultimate point of the article (and the original tweet that stimulated it) is a more immediate understanding of the level of harm that is being committed by what we currently term 'normal behavior:'

"We must not, of course, get numb to either thousands of Covid deaths a day, or to the hundreds of deaths conservatively linked to a BP-spill-size amount of oil that is burned as intended. The links from selling, to burning fossil fuels, to the damages immediately attributable to the resulting emissions, are all too clear. It's high time our laws and courts catch up with that reality."

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Daily Climate Damage Should Feel More Like A Disaster
By Gernot Wagner
February 11, 2022
Bloomberg
 

Tuesday, January 25, 2022

Strategic CSR - Uber/Lyft

The article in the url below reports on recent research that conducts a marginal cost-benefit analysis for each person that switches from a private car to only using a ride-hail company. The premise for the research was the promise that Uber and Lyft originally made to justify their business models:

"A decade ago, Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. charged into cities with a promise: By reducing personal car trips, ride-hailing businesses could both ease traffic and bolster the use of public transit. What happened was the reverse: A host of pre-pandemic research linked the rise of these services to sharp upticks in traffic and waning ridership on buses and trains."

The results were quite surprising. Even more surprising is that, even if all the Uber and Lyft vehicles become electric, that is still not going to tip the balance:

"Now a new study puts a price on the external costs that come with switching from a personal vehicle to one from a transportation network company (or TNC): about 35 cents per trip on average. And it finds that even a fully electrified fleet of ride-hailing cars may not fully mitigate the extra toll they exact on society compared to driving yourself."

Some detail about the study (see also, here):

"To determine the role that ride-hailing plays in generating these often-hidden effects, [the authors] simulated replacing 100,000 private passenger vehicle trips with TNC trips in six U.S. cities, using publicly available ride-hailing data from New York City, Austin, Chicago and the state of California. Through a review of other studies that have quantified the externalities of driving in general, such as local air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and traffic deaths, they approximated the dollar amounts that society saves or spends when travelers choose Uber or Lyft over their own automobiles."

Of course, there are some benefits, but the net effect is pretty clear:

"Ride-hailing helps on at least one front, the researchers found: air pollution. … But that benefit was undone by the negative impacts of deadheading, or the time in between trips when drivers are traveling passenger-free to their next pickup."

The overall result?

"All told, switching from a private car to a TNC increased net external costs by 30% to 35%, or about 35 cents per trip. … In other words, even a fully electrified ride-hailing industry — the likes of which Uber and Lyft have both promised by 2030 — would not be enough to make up for the congestion and deaths created by the added TNC miles."

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


That Uber or Lyft Trip May Be Worse for the Planet Than Driving Yourself
By Laura Bliss
September 30, 2021
Bloomberg

Tuesday, December 7, 2021

Strategic CSR - The future

 
This is the last CSR Newsletter of the Fall semester.
Happy Holidays and I will see you in the New Year!
 

I try and keep the opening and closing newsletters of the term a little shorter, as things are just getting going or just winding down, and I figure you are all busy doing other things. The article in the url below makes this easy because it is about a photograph that has been shortlisted this year for the Prix Pictet prize in London. The nominated photograph was taken at a garbage dump in Senegal, which is named Mbeubeuss:

"The land on which it sits was once flat swampland. It began as a landfill site in 1968; today, it is a mountain of rubbish. It has accumulated so much plastic waste from the city that to reach it you have to drive on a road of compacted trash."

The article features an interview with the photographer, Fabrice Monteiro, so I'll let you read more into the photograph and how it came about, if you would like. For this newsletter, I think the photograph speaks loudly enough for itself:


As the photographer concludes:

"Across all I do, I'm interested in identity and how we separate ourselves from those we consider the 'other.' Throughout history, humankind has created an idea of the other in order to justify his or her exploitation. It is an idea that was central to slavery and colonialism. But it's also at the heart of our approach to the environment. Only because we see ourselves as apart from the natural world, or superior to it, can we continue to treat it this way."

For more environmental photography, there is a related story here.

Take care
David

David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020

Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e 
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/


Fabrice Monteiro's best photograph: A spirit emerges from a rubbish dump in Senegal
By Edward Siddons
November 24, 2021
The Guardian