Briefing: Climate Change
Global warming is an environmental issue which effects every single one of us. The past 50 years has seen the fastest increase in global temperatures in recorded history; since the year 2000, 15 out of 16 of the hottest days since temperatures have been recorded happened ("Global Warming 101", n.p.). The scientific explanation for global warming is that carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as other pollutants, get into the atmosphere and trap sunlight and solar radiation, causing an increase in global temperatures ("Global Warming 101", n.p.). The two major sources of CO2 are coal-burning for energy and emissions from the transportation sector. While the transportation sector is the second-largest source of carbon pollution, it still generates approximately 1.7 billion tons of CO2 each year ("Global Warming 101", n.p.). Global warming negatively affects us because as temperatures increase, polar ice caps melt causing a rise in water, and a decrease in land. Also, the change has a direct effect on wildlife and foliage; the natural habitats are changing too drastically and too quickly for evolution to keep up and species are dying as a result. The major stakeholders in this are wildlife (including plants) and humans. The wildlife is no doubt losing, while humans are only winning in a purely capitalistic sense. The only way that global warming is going to be curbed at all is by a severe cut in CO2 emissions; this means finding alternatives to fossil fuels all over the world. While CO2 emissions have been decreasing in the United States since 2005, there is still a lot of work worldwide that needs to be done. As a company, it is important that we consider if changes need to be made in order to reduce our CO2 emissions, especially in light of the recent signing of the Paris Climate Accord where a commitment has been made to reduce global warming. As a large car manufacturer, we are in a unique position to help drastically change the amount of CO2 emissions, and it is our corporate social responsivity to do so.
Options to Consider
There are several options our company could choose from as far as possible changes. One option is to do nothing and keep operations exactly as they are. The other two options are outlined below.
Option Two
Option 2 would be a change in how we power our operations. We could change our offices and factories to using predominantly solar or wind power, thereby reducing our usage of traditional coal energy. This would drastically reduce our CO2 emissions as a company. In addition, we could streamline our supply chain and begin using transportation that uses renewable energy or at the least is more energy efficient, further reducing our emissions as a company.
Option Three
Option 3 would be to switch to selling more hybrid or fully electric vehicles, versus traditional gas or diesel vehicles. While this would not have a direct impact on the emissions of our company itself, it would go a long way to reducing carbon emissions in any country we market our vehicles in. A decrease in all fossil fuel using engines would have an immediate impact on CO2 emissions and therefore global warming.
Ethical Analysis
Option One
While option one would be the most utilitarian in regards to upfront costs, it fails every other measure of ethics. To do nothing would ignore our corporate social responsibility, which as a virtuous ethical standard should be important to us. Also, by doing nothing we would be ignoring the social change around us, possibly costing us a future loss of sales or an increased cost to change some of our organization due to time constraints. Furthermore, the longer we allow ourselves to be a large creator of CO2 emissions, the more we infringe upon the human rights of others since clean, breathable air should be considered a basic human right. Finally, according to the ethical principle of justice, since we are a larger contributor to the issue of CO2 emissions, and therefore global warming, we also should be a larger contributor in fixing the issues that cause global warming. While this is the easiest option, it is also the most unethical option in light of the global warming crisis.
Option Two
Option two would allow us to meet our burden of corporate social responsibility so would satisfy the ethical requirement of virtue. The change to solar or wind power, as well as eco-friendlier supply chain practices, would be costly and take time; it would not be immediately utilitarian in regards to upfront costs, but would save the company money in the long run. Not having electrical or fuel bills, among other perks, would dramatically affect the bottom line of the company. This creates a win-win situation for the company and the environment. Since our emissions would be reduced, we would be doing our part to improve air quality, and therefore would be helping to provide for the human right of clean air. As far as the ethics of justice, this option would allow us to do our part to decrease emissions and therefore help meet the goal to reduce global warming. This is an ethical solution to choose.
Option Three
Option three is less about our personal corporate social responsibility, and more about the virtue ethics of our customers. While we could produce thousands of eco-friendly vehicles, if the market does not yet exist for them the money, time and energy to make those vehicles will all have been a waste. While people are beginning to look more to hybrid and fully electric vehicles, there is not yet a steady and reliable customer base. As far as utilitarian ethics, there would be substantial upfront costs to changing the types of cars we make. On one side, this could put us on the cutting edge, and therefore pay off very well in the long run. On the other side, this could flop and put us in a bad place financially. An increase in cars on the road that emit less or no CO2 gasses would definitely help with the human right to clean air, even more than changing our offices and factories to clean energy. The ethics of justice would be skewed. Our company would be taking all the risk, without a guaranteed gain so there is no equal distribution of benefits or burdens. While this plan has the potential for the highest CO2 emission plan, and is somewhat ethically sound, there is a lot to deter us from it. It would be a very large leap of faith for our company that could really make us or totally wreck us.
Final Recommendations
While there is little doubt that option one, to do nothing, is not an acceptable option for our company, the other two options are ones to look into. Per option two, by making our offices, factories and supply chain eco-friendlier we are working within ethical guidelines. We also would save money in the long run, thereby off-setting the initial investment to make the changes. It is a win-win for the environment and the company, since the company would end up saving money and also reduce CO2 outputs. Option three, however, would have much further reaching environmental impacts since it would increase the amount of eco-friendly cars on the road and emissions from vehicles is such a huge part of global warming. Unfortunately, this option also leaves a lot of variables in the air. Would people purchase the vehicles if we made more? Would the cost of making necessary changes to produce these vehicle types ever be recouped? Option three has a lot of unknown quantities, and could be very positive or negative for the company.
Ultimately, I would have to recommend option two. It is a guaranteed benefit for the environment and the company. While I would recommend completely embracing option two, I do recommend that option three be considered on a small scale. By going eco-friendly in the office, and offering a few more eco-friendly vehicles, we could have an excellent marketing campaign about the changes within our company. It would also give us, as a company, a better idea of demand for our eco-friendly vehicles and allow us to determine if that is a direction to look to more in the future.
Works Cited
"Global Warming 101". NRDC. N.p., 2016. Web. 18 May 2016.
