If your social media feed looks anything like mine you probably saw some posts this past September about the Climate Clock in Manhattan, New York. The clock was created by two artists with a passion for the environment and a mission to call attention to the problems it’s being faced with. While this installment does a great job at gaining the attention of and creating a sense of guilt in the average passerby, it’s worth asking if that guilt is being appropriately placed.
In most modern climate discussions, much emphasis is placed on individual action and responsibility. While individual efforts should not be dismissed, it is essential to consider larger sources of pollution that tend to go unchecked, primarily the major corporations that dominate American consumerism. “Most GHG emissions and climate impacts are caused by companies, but there is very little legislation compelling them to do something about this, either by reducing their direct emissions or emissions generated through their supply chains” (Wilde-Ramsing). For years corporations have been able to get away with harming the environment and creating dangerous living conditions for citizens with relatively minimal consequences (hmm, it’s almost like corporations have significant influence over legislature… but that’s a different discussion).
So how do we go about addressing this detriment? Well, after a first glance it would be easy to propose a solution such as simply boycotting harmful companies and finding sustainable replacements. This is easier said than done however. First of all, since there has been little incentive for corporations to adjust their practices, not many sustainable alternatives are available (though availability has been improving in recent years). Second, sustainable alternatives are often more expensive and harder to find. This means that sustainability tends to turn into a socioeconomic issue as well. Rather, we should look for solutions through policy changes. Adding taxes and providing incentives to corporations that encourage environmental consciousness are always a strong method, but are often considered controversial and face considerable debate and backlash.
Pigovian taxes, however, tend to draw support across the political spectrum. A Pigovian tax is defined as a tax that is “intended to tax the producer of goods or services that create adverse side effects for society” (Kagan). This form of tax works as a deterrent for problematic behaviors from corporations by instituting a penalty for negative externalities. While there is no one single solution to the issue of climate justice and corporate irresponsibility, a Pigovian tax seems like a logical first step. By holding corporations accountable, we make sustainability more widely implemented and therefore more accessible. As fellow activists, I implore you to write, email, and call your representatives. Sign petitions, share resources, stay informed on current environmental and political issues.
Kagan, Julia. “Pigovian Tax.” Investopedia, Investopedia, 25 Aug. 2020, www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pigoviantax.asp#:~:text=A%20Pigovian%20(Pigouvian)%20tax%20is,of%20the%20product's%20market%20price.
Wilde-Ramsing. “Corporate Accountability and the Just Transition: Frameworks for Holding Corporations Accountable for Climate Change.” Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 14 Dec. 2020, www.business-humanrights.org/en/blog/corporate-accountability-and-the-just-transition-frameworks-for-holding-corporations-accountable-for-climate-change/.