Guilty Planet

Will Big Business Save the Earth? This was the title of the New York Times Op-Ed last week by Jared Diamond (UCLA professor and author of Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse). I thought we could go through his piece -- piece by piece.

1) He begins:

There is a widespread view, particularly among environmentalists and liberals, that big businesses are environmentally destructive, greedy, evil and driven by short-term profits. I know -- because I used to share that view. But today I have more nuanced feelings.

More nuanced feelings? The New York TImes must not edit for arrogance. Many big businesses are environmentally destructive and driven by profit. That is not a feeling. That is a fact, especially when those big businesses are publicly traded. Since it is a fact, it is not liberal, either. There are plenty of my conservative family and relatives who know these two features of corporate policy (and a lot of humanity, too) to be true.

2) He continues:

Over the years I've joined the boards of two environmental groups, the World Wildlife Fund and Conservation International, serving alongside many business executives.

Why are there so many business executives on the boards of NGOs? This is a question Jared Diamond and his pithy intelligence are poised to answer, but will not.

3) Diamond prefers to point toward the environmental successes of large corporations. Like Wal-Mart. They are emitting fewer greenhouse gases because they found more efficient ways to use fuel. Semi-trucks no longer keep their big engines running for the 10 hours the driver sleeps. (A critical reader probably took pause here.) Wal-Mart also uses fewer materials now in packaging than they used to. Sure, this environmental friendliness also saves money, so it's a win-win for Wal-Mart and the world. Hoorah!

4) Only what about when environmental shifts don't save money? Well, Diamond doesn't discuss that except to mention:

To my pleasant astonishment, in 2006 Wal-Mart decided to switch, within five years, all its purchases of wild-caught seafood to fisheries certified as sustainable.

That 5 years is almost up. Diamond doesn't tell us how much progress has been made, but I will: Wal-Mart is nowhere near reaching that goal.

5) Diamond then moves into policies that receive what he considers to be unfair objections from businesses and policy-makers, which is reasonable stuff. But he then finishes the article so weakly:

As for the rest of us, we should get over the misimpression that American business cares only about immediate profits, and we should reward companies that work to keep the planet healthy.

Should we get over it? Diamond never really gives us reason to. He explains a few things that Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, and Chevron are doing for the environment but not why they are doing it.

True: businesses do not just care about profits. They also care about reputation. CEOs recognized that corporate reputation is a more important measure of success than stock market performance, profitability, and return on investment. That is why they are changing (if, in fact, they are). Reputation is linked to profit (as the termination of Tiger Woods' contracts demonstrates). The good thing about reputation is that the image does not always have to be the truth (unless the truth comes out, in which case Gatorade will drop Tiger) -- that is why Wal-Mart can announce they will shelve only sustainable seafood and then not do it. Diamond was there last week to reward Wal-Mart for keeping the planet healthy. Will he be there to punish them, too?