It could be quite understandably argued that – of the two major forms of pollution and environmental damage, industrial and individual – industrial environmental damage is a far greater threat to global society, and should be held to much greater account than the lifestyle choices of that global society’s individuals.
That claim, it seems, has been backed by the United Nations, whose report on the effect of business and trade on the environment has shown that trade and commerce – particularly in the utilities industry – are having vast and detrimental effects on not only the world’s ecosystems, but the global economy.
Whilst the UN report is not yet ready for publication, the UK’s Guardian newspaper undertook an analysis of figures prepared for them by the data analysts Trucost, who also submitted information for the UN report.
On the findings, the Guardian has written as follows:
By far the most “damaging” were the utilities, where the $400bn total “cost” was dominated by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, nuclear waste, acid rain and smog precursors, and metal pollution in water.
The four sectors with the lowest impact – telecommunications, healthcare, technology and financial services – all caused environmental damage totalling less than $25bn each.
After the utilities, the two sectors with the biggest impacts were “basic materials” such as mining, forestry and chemical companies, with costs put at just over $300bn, and consumer goods such as cars, food, drink and toys, at just under $300bn.
What the sister-report run by the Guardian makes clear is that there is a direct correlation between those industries in relationship with natural resources, and those industries that produce serious and lasting effects.
Whilst this correlation is a seriously obvious one – clearly mining and forestry are going to have environmental repercussions – it does serve to give hard evidence for the damage that such processes are doing to the environment.
The presence of chemicals and utilities companies, too, represents something more telling: whilst it would be difficult to imagine a way in which mining or forestry could not have an impact on the environment from which it draws, it can be said that the vast damage done by utilities companies – who currently rely almost solely on fossil fuels – plus the choice of chemicals in use by chemical companies, is indictative of their cultural torwards the environment in which they are said to be in companionship.
Could not, indeed, the utilities sector rely more heavily on green energy solutions, which would cut the problem of mining and land degradation? Could not the chemicals in use be sourced from natural alternatives?
Of course, these are hypothetical questions, and general questions at that, but the fact that even the preliminary reports lead to such issues – and that the questions can be backed with statistical evidence – makes quite clear the fact that such environmental damage is glaringly obvious, that some sort of reform is needed, and that it is money and not ethics talking.
A dire situation indeed.
