Tobacco Companies And Climate Change

They both Research the facts of tobacco and give statistics in their advertisements. However this doesn’t always work so they research who their audience is and use an effective method to make them stop smoking. Then they took Action, whether it be scaring them, making them feel guilty, or making them feel like they were targeted. They Communicated through television commercials, social media, and by word of mouth. They have both Evaluated the effects of their campaigns and have enjoyed the results. 23 percent of teens smoked cigarettes in the year 2000, now in the year 2017 only 6 percent of teens smoke. The company that lost value in this case was the Big tobacco companies. They have taken a hit with this new generation of potential tobacco users not using. The media has shown that these anti-tobacco campaigns have affected Big tobacco’s stocks bringing them down from 7-10

Climate change is one of today’s most hotly debated topic. Scientists for many decades have made supposed claims that current energy creation and reliance on fossil fuels will lead to inevitable changes to the planet. Today, climate change denial is still a popular to most of the world despite the mounds of evidence to support that it exists. The climate change issue suffers from being mismanaged by various parties through focusing on the wrong issues and the lack of true commitment from the general public, according to Sandra Steingraber.

On the other side of the argument we have anti-climate change activists, who are sceptical about the issue of climate change. They argue that climate change is an attention seeking stunt, and financial recognition of an irrelevant sector of the science community. Often just trying to convince people that climate change is a hoax.

For both the pro and con sides these facts are presented in order to support each paper's opinions. One opinion of the pro side is that the market of cigarettes is a market for disease and death. At one point the paper states, "Outrage at an industry that has made billions selling sickness and death" the paper enforces this opinion later by saying, "For decades, Big Tobacco has made a profit by selling the instruments of disease and death." Another opinion is that tobacco industries are the only companies that manufacture a product which causes serious illness and kills. The pro side quotes Edward L. Kaven, author of Smoking: The Story Behind the Maze as saying, "the only industry which produces a consumer product that is likely to kill and render human beings seriously ill when used as intended." I believe that these opinions are exaggerated ones. First of all, the tobacco companies are not the only companies that sell a product that is unhealthy and even has devastating affects on people.

When information was released to the public in 1939, tobacco companies found ways to discredit, and silence the public concern. In fact, previous to this tobacco manufacturers claimed an increase in health and medicinal properties for tobacco products. With the formation of the Council for Tobacco Research, in 1954, a direct link was sought between smoking and health related problems. Upon the finding of such evidence major cigarette manufacturers unite.

If we look at the tobacco industry we clearly see that the manufactures that make tobacco products help fund and provide research on the use of their product, not hinder it. We the people have access to that information, and our right to choose whether or not we use tobacco products remains in our hands.

During the Canadian Climate Change conference, there were many compelling arguments for both sides. On the side that wanted Canada to take immediate action, they brought up the fact that our future generations would have to suffer from the consequences of our selfish, greedy and reckless lifestyle of burning fossil fuels. Furthermore, they exaggerated the outcomes of manmade climate change and bringing up feelings of pity for the future generations because they will have to live in a polluted world that humans created. They said that if we do not take action now, there will be many jobs lost due to climate change. Although there are many jobs in the fossil fuels business, they will not continue forever because they are finite and will run

ExxonMobil, one of the largest oil companies in the world and the United States, encourages the distrust of facts about climate change attempting to mitigate the role of fossil fuel consumption. Their denial shows they are aware of the effects they have on the environment. Exxon pushes this denial of climate change by funding organizations that do not believe in climate change. While their current public image shows they do not believe the facts of climate change, a recent release of internal documents show that they have known the truth from research they conducted in the late 1970’s. Exxon must stop promoting the denial of climate change because they need to progress their business practices to a more sustainable model, allowing them to better cope with inevitable future reductions of fossil fuel use.

In addition, I felt astonished by who the companies were targeting. Particularly, my astonishment arose when I read that one of the target groups for advertisement were doctors themselves. In detail, Part Four of The Emperor of All Maladies by Siddhartha Mukherjee stating that including doctors engendered reassurance to other consumers that smoking cigarettes are safe (251). Surely, after reading that information, I felt astonished and cringed due to knowing how tobacco causes cancer and with my impression of doctors being health fanatics, I found myself in a state of shock. Nonetheless, I had wondered where the strategy of targeting audience came from and I ought to acknowledge that targeting audience is a brilliant idea, however, I felt that tobacco companies being the target is truly the devil in its

On June 22 of 2010, over ten years of intensive planning from the FDA would finally result in the extensive regulation of the $89 billion tobacco industry. Although the newly created laws could not illegalize nicotine or tobacco, the FDA was given vast authority to regulate the ingredients in tobacco products as well as the way they were sold, distributed, and marketed (lawpublish.com). Now when viewing a tobacco ad in any form, any individual would obviously be capable of seeing the negatives and health risks of the product. Recently, skeptics have been raising question

If any more proof was needed of the power that goes along with the money in the tobacco industry, it was given last May. The FDA has finally put their say into the business of the biggest and most threatening competition the tobacco industry has ever had. And the results were down right pathetic.

In August 1970 a leading tobacco defense attorney, David R. Hardy, wrote a confidential letter warning that indiscreet comments by industry scientists, including references to biologically active components of cigarette smoke and the search for a safer cigarette, constitute a real threat to the continued success in the defense of smoking and health litigation. The actual knowledge on the part of the defendant that smoking is generally dangerous to health, that certain ingredients are dangerous to health and should be removed, or that smoking causes a particular disease. This would not only be evidence that would substantially prove a case against the defendant company for compensatory damages, but could be considered

For years the big tobacco companies and the organizations that want to do away with them have thrown out numbers to dismantle one another. And both are equally guilty of throwing out statistics that can skew the publics perception on the use of tobacco. Of course we all know that smoking or using tobacco products comes with risks. But when an anti-tobacco company comes out with a commercial warning everyone that potentially most of the products in tobacco will give you cancer, I suggest you do some research first before you go running to your

For the last decade there has been a topic that everybody has either something positive or negative to talk about, and that would be climate change. It is something where people are trying to figure out the main reason that is causing climate change. One of the main reasons that people believe is the problem are big corporations.

It is beyond reproach to think of R.A. Fisher as anything less than a genius. In the world of statistics he is a hero whose status in history is justifiably brilliant. However, in the late 1950’s, towards the end of his career, Fisher perplexingly became a staunch opponent of the tobacco hypothesis. Fisher would go on to hold public lectures, using his credentials in an attempt to marginalize the epidemiological data in support of the tobacco hypothesis. To understand Fisher’s staunch position, one should reflect upon a series of events or happenstances that helped define Fisher(44).