Which Businesses Cause the Most Damage to the Environment?
If you think of damage to the environment, it’s easy to remember recent news pictures of the dreadful smog in China. With its growing population and huge exports, it needs lots of power.
What else springs to mind?
Deforestation in the Amazon, water pollution, mono-cropping, mining and drilling, oil spills – the list is long. Choose almost any country in the world and you’ll find cities hiding under a haze of pollution.
Are some industries worse than others for the damage they cause?
Well, a United Nations backed report has listed its top businesses for damage to the environment.
The study, by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) admits that its numbers are uncertain.
They allocated dollar values to the long-term impacts of pollution, water, greenhouse gases and waste generated by these industries – a difficult task.
But here’s what they came up with:
The World’s Most Destructive Businesses
- Coal-fired power generation. The biggest culprit is China but most countries have coal-powered electricity. It causes massive greenhouse gases which contribute to climate change, and pollution affects human and animal health.
Intensive meat production – a highly destructive business. Photo Gary Kazanyan for the NYT.Cattle ranching – especially in South America where Amazonian rainforest has been cleared to make way for cattle and for agriculture to feed them – causes massive water stress and deforestation.
- Coal-fired power in North America
- Wheat and rice farming in Southern Asia.
Do Companies Care?
German sportswear group Puma was the first major firm to do an environmental profit and loss account, estimating it caused 145 million euros ($190 million) in damage to nature in 2010. The cost is not added to the sales price of products and is meant as a guide to consumers.
What about us?
The study estimated that basic goods from cement to wheat caused damage totalling $7.3 trillion a year. (I can’t even imagine that amount of money).
For us as consumers, it means that we can help by:
- Reducing our energy consumption
- Refusing to buy excess products, “buying out” of consumerism so that we don’t waste yet more energy and cause more pollution for these items to be manufactured
- Reducing our meat consumption
With those sorts of numbers, it’s more important than ever that we do the right thing!
It really bothers me when I watch shows like extreme couponing and I see these stock piles of product in people homes! We just don’t need that many “things” as a species. However, I do enjoy watching those that donate dry goods to food banks or shelters.
I didn’t know about shows like that, but I like the idea of donating, thanks for that!
I’m familiar with cattle production in the USA and while i know it has it’s faults, I might challenge that horses cause more damage if the full scale is looked at. Horse manure and the wood shavings used as bedding are rarely composted, and are usually hauled to landfills. As a farrier I see insult to the environment on many levels. Leaching manure piles, deforestation for pastures, barns, and hay fields, as well as tons of steel used for shoes that almost always get thrown in the garbage. As much as I love horses they are not environmentally friendly!
Don, that’s really interesting, I don’t know very much about horses so this was all new to me. With some 60 million horses around the world (and more in the USA than in any other single country) that has a definite impact, thanks so much for that information.
I think it’s the numbers that make cattle rearing such a destructive industry. It’s difficult to get an estimate of just how many cattle there are worldwide but (according to The Economist) it’s estimated at some 1.4 Billion. (And the practices at factory farms are pretty horrendous).
There are a few horses on the little island where I now live; I shall look at them from a different perspective now!
And I love your comment “insult to the environment” – thanks!
Cattle ranching comes as a little surprise at number 2 ahead of US coal fired power stations but the others are no surprise. Perhaps should buy Puma from now on.
Yes, it’s good to know Puma are at least aware of their impact on the environment. (I don’t know if they’re doing anything to reduce that impact, but they’re doing more than many other companies – I imagine it costs quite a bit to do that kind of research and quantify it). Of course Puma is owned by PPR, a French luxury brand company with Gucci and other expensive labels in its stable. However, Puma remains a pretty independent company as far as I can see. Full marks to them for starting!