Environmental Waste And Its Effects On Carbon Emissions

Many firms are learning that being environmentally friendly and sustainable has numerous benefits. (O.C Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell, 2015). This could enable them to increase goodwill from various stakeholders and also save money in the long term. This will mean that they are being more efficient and less wasteful of resources, which will enable them to be more competitive by satisfying stakeholders. The CEO of

The argument about man’s role in climate change and the role of government, the role of industry and the role of citizens is a significant challenge that crosses all levels of government, crosses all geopolitical boundaries and crosses all sectors of business. National governments across the globe are dealing with the issue in different ways, but one overarching aspect of control and mitigation can be seen in the oversight and regulation of the electric energy industry. One significant challenge facing each nation is the cost to lower carbon emissions and the question of who will pay the additional cost for compliance. Though the cost issue is significant, a much more difficult question is whether any decision on lowering emissions can make

The issue of carbon emissions is an important one not only from an environmental perspective but also an economic one. While reducing carbon emissions is an important one for the health of human beings as well as that of the environment, the larger question is what type of policy strategy is best for both reducing such emissions which might have an impact on efforts to mitigate the effects of pollution on climate change. While ther are options to consider which does not rely on economics-- technological or output standards achieved by command and control regulations--they are often fraught with political resistance by industry because they do not allow industry to make any choices or play a role in solving the problem of

Carbon taxing coal-based products, in a revenue-neutral way, will help discourage overuse of fossil fuels. The United States needs to reduce carbon emissions in order to avoid the costs that pollution and climate change inflict on the general economy and individuals. Carbon, unlike other commodities exchanged and consumed in the free market, bears unique costs to the general economy that its market price does not encompass. The pollution we create when we consume carbon contaminates our air, raises temperatures, and makes severe weather events more frequent. A carbon tax is an economic mechanism that forces actors in a free market to come face-to-face with the social cost of

One point of view says that we should invest in the environment because it will increase our reputation among other things resulting in increased sales. Another point of view is to not invest in sustainability and since consumers gravitate towards the best products and the best prices, which a team could develop, then sustainability is just an unneeded expense. As a team we feel that there should a balance of both investing in sustainable business practices and turning a profit. This strategy can be seen when we turned a $4,600,257 profit in quarter six while investing in seven conscious

Certain decisions can result in consequences for the business, the employees, and all other stakeholders. While maintaining a competitive edge helps maintain profitability, it also allows provides workers with higher wages, bonuses, and other rewards that benefit them. Maintaining a competitive edge is important to many stakeholders within the organization who stand to benefit, it may not benefit, or may even be harmful to other members of the community. If a company produces waste that affects surrounding air or water quality, the business decisions may be in unethical. It would be a top priority to find ways to reduce waste, while still maintaining

According to the case, the carbon-tax and a cap-and-trade system are the best economic tool to employ to reduce emissions. As we know, taxes are the most important expense for a company or firm, if they would emit much more carbon dioxide and other gases, they need to pay more taxes on using carbon recourses. It is stated (Bubna-Litic & Chalifour 2012) that ‘One of the defining features of carbon taxes is that they generate a relatively clear and predictable stream of revenue’. The revenue can be used in many different ways and a key issue is how

Covanta Energy Corporation (Covanta), formerly known as Ogden Corporation in 1939 until 2001 when the company changed its name, operates as a subsidiary of Covanta Holding Corporation. When Ogden Corp. faced the economic crisis in 1960s, Ralph Ablon, the president and directing force behind the Ogden Corp. said, “Evolutionary adaptation is just as important for a company as it is for organisms” (“Ogden Corporation”). Indeed, evolutionary adaptation has repeatedly taken Covanta from facing the danger of bankruptcy to a successful recession-resistant business model as it is today. Evolutionary adaptation has also helped Covanta slowly merging into e-waste recycling business, also known as electronic waste recycling. While environmental groups are concerned for the issue of air emission, Covanta executes efficient implementations on the process of incineration so as to gain more control of emissions. By doing so, Covanta is able to maintain 80% to 85% below Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air quality limits (LaMonica). Correspondingly, Covanta’s effective business strategies lead to a rapid growth in its sustainability. Especially since the announcement of hiring a Chief Sustainability Officer for the Refuse System in 2008, Covanta’s sustainability engagement has shown a “significantly positive effect on the wealth of shareholders of the firm” (Sharma, Rajneesh, and A. J. Stagliano 14). Besides, because Covanta approaches its greater sustainability by

They looked at two scenarios, inaction, where business’ continue finding and using carbon as they see fit, and action, where business’ use a low-carbon energy mix. They found that not only would the investment cost of the action scenario be no more than inaction, but it would even cost a bit less- 190.2 trillion dollars for action and 192 trillion dollars for inaction. This is before even considering the amount of money saved by the effects of the action scenario itself. The report found that, “the difference in climate damage costs between low (1.5°C) warming and high (4.5°C) warming scenarios could be as high as $50 trillion” (Business Insider). The effect of such a large economic company reporting this data is the perfect example of how using economics for the sake of reversing global warming can be really beneficial. The argument often used by economists is that becoming more sustainable would hurt the economy, but the data in this report proves just the opposite, and how terrible it would be if we did nothing. For the sake of investment in industry’s like coal and gas, this information is often denied. But this is not anywhere near the first time industry’s have had to adapt due to uncontrollable events. This report emphasizes the importance of recognizing

One positive implication capitalism has to the natural environment is industrial ecology, a system of chain production and consumption, serving to the lowest environmental impacts in a most environmentally sustainable economy as the main goal of operation (Richards & Pearson, 1998). The Companies in a like to operate in such way because of four major reasons. The most important factor is known as the corporate well-being, for it is determined by higher profits and growth provided by innovations in an industry. Profits are increased from recognizing the production ineffiency costs that comes from wasted inputs and energy losses; this allowing cost savings to increase and ineffiency to decrease. compliance with cleaner technology alternatives such as ones that produce less waste and less energy will provide long term savings which are both beneficial to the environment and the business at hand. A real world example freight company changes their salvaged driving equipment to hybrid vehicles. Money is temporarily lost, but the gasoline and maintenances cost savings will compensate in a long run period of time.

One may be that profits will be reduced, if latest ‘green’ methods of production or waste disposals are always being purchased. Without high profits businesses will be less able to expand and produce higher amount and quality of goods. In many countries, legal protection of the environment is weak and inspection systems are inadequate. There will, as a result, be less risk of legal action and heavy fines against business activity in these countries. Furthermore, in developing countries it is argued that economic development is more important that protecting the environment. Businesses can achieve more 'good' by producing cheaply in these countries that if they were forced to always adopt the 'greenest' production strategy.

The economy today runs on an antiquated ritual of exploiting, plundering, devastation, and manipulation of land for material wealth, profiting the wealthy and condemning the poor. This mindset is no more sophisticated than feudalism, a system so bad it had to be outlawed along with witchcraft. The idea that exploitation of land is justified has brought plastics to the ocean and leveled rainforests. Large corporations have grown larger by manufacturing and production, depleting the planet’s resources in the process. Now, companies must make a combined effort to put the environment first, before profit. Because of their harmful practices, consumers have the right to know where products come from, how they’re made, and the impact on the environment. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the large corporations to change their harmful practices, to make strides towards ending climate change and use clean, sustainable methods.

As Kline (2017) stated, “Socially responsible companies can reduce their credit spread by 40%, avoid market losses from crises (saving millions), double the probability of receiving investment grade ratings, reduce share price volatility 2-10%, and reduce systematic or market risk by 4%.” More interestingly, Kline (2017) mentioned, “...the researchers found that corporate responsibility could potentially increase the market value of a company by up to 6% over a 15- year period. Market value may grow even more -- to 40-80% higher than peers ' and competitors ' market value -- for companies with strong relationships with stakeholders such as environmental and social NGOs.” Similarly, Kline (2017) voiced, “The study found several advantages on the human resources front due to retention of talent attracted to CR. Staff turnover rates are 25 to 50% lower in responsible companies, who can save around $3700 on average in wage increases to encourage an employee to stay when he or she would rather go elsewhere.” Kline (2017) brought up some engaging trends, “ In fact, in responsible companies 5% of employees say they are willing to accept a decline in compensation. These companies register a 7.5% increase in

Unilever and Proctor & Gamble have some similarities in their approaches to corporate social responsibility, but they implement their ideas in different ways. Unilever and Procter & Gamble are both committed to reducing greenhouse gases and water usage, not only for their companies as well as their customers. Unilever’s CEO Paul Polman announced his “Compass Vision” shortly after acquiring his current position. The vision aimed to double the size of Unilever’s business while reducing their environmental impact through the use of the USLP program. (Bartlett, 2015, pg.3) Proctor & Gamble also aimed to reduce their impact with the mindset of trying to “power all our plants with 100% renewable energy … and to have zero consumer and manufacturing waste go to landfills” as stated in their leadership statement released by Martin Riant. (Riant, 2015) Unilever and Procter & Gamble both show a very strong commit to the environment.

Electronic waste, also known as e-waste, is comprised of the electronic devices that are discarded by the individuals either for the purpose of recycling or salvaging. E-waste is found to be remained untreated in the developing countries due to their lack of recycling ability and thus, it incorporates the prevalence of environmental issues in the developing countries, which eventually impacts the global environment in a broader context. The current paper is aimed to discuss the impact of e-waste on the climate, weather and air quality, and is also aimed to enlighten the suggestions that can be incorporated to reduce the negative effects of the e-waste.