Here is Why Corporate Executives Keep Polluting the Planet They Live On

Polluters for profit seem to be behaving illogically. After all, they live here too. But there’s a madness to their madness.

16 thoughts on “Here is Why Corporate Executives Keep Polluting the Planet They Live On

  1. Let us remember that it is WE, the consumers, who buy what the “polluting executives” have to offer thus providing their profits and being not much less guilty, if at all, in the process of species and societal suicide.

  2. 1. Due to the economic and technological factors involved, consumers have limited choices. I can stop eating bacon, and the slaughterhouses will still run full speed. Fake bacon, at a significantly higher price per unit, can’t compete w/poor people needing to stretch a dollar.
    2. Later has worked for centuries. It is only since the population increase has overwhelmed the planet’s capacity to regenerate that this has become a problem. The goons in the boardroom are unable, emotionally, to grok that theirs is the generation that’s being handed the bill for the prior generations’ excesses. As a GenXer, I understand the trauma. I hope they’re all lined up against a wall and shot. I’d say hang ’em all, but then someone would pretend to be agitated about my racism.

      • Henri,

        In America, specifically in our long, indefensible, disgusting history filled with acts that would have made Himmler gag, lynching was a commonly used method of bringing blacks to heel. (I’m borrowing the last two words from Hillary Clinton, bestie of war criminal Kissinger.)
        Recently, the professional outrage takers have focused on that portion of American history to provide themselves with yet another way of controlling the “discussion” so that no one dare challenge them without risk of being branded–perpetually and withour recourse–as racist.
        So, during Barack Obama’s presidency, when he was busily licking every corner and crevice of every banker’s ass crack while middle class homeowners were killing themselves in despair; and while he left Gitmo open and his mindless supporters shrieked themselves hoarse about how “we didn’t elect a king; he can’t just close Gitmo” (which is not true, the president could have forced the issue with very little effort–the details are left as an exercise for the student); and while Barry O, the constitutional law professor, hunted down whistle-blowers with an efficiency and ruthlessness that would have earned him the admiration of any bounty hunter of runaway slaves, occasionally, someone would say “I wish the president would grow a set of balls,” and the outrage takers would point out that during the lynching period of American history (which runs to hundreds of years), castration was also used as a method of bringing black men to heel (ibid.). Thus, another form of peppering the marketplace of ideas with landmines. Arguments trying to explore the problems we face as a nation, as the 99%, were hampered by a culture of “sensitivity” and “respect” that forced every statement, every utterance with any genuine outrage in it, through the “trigger warning” and “outrage” filters that demand everything expressed in outrage be as neutral as possible.
        Thus, as is essential when trying to avoid any real discussion of the CURRENT problems, the things that need to be fixed NOW for the people who are STILL alive, any reference that can be linked back to any period of history, as far back as history has existed, is used to derail any meaningful conversation. Thus, I refrain from setting myself up to enable those outrage takers who are solely in it for enlarging their own presence and bank accounts from being lobbed a soft pitch.
        Part of why I keep coming back to this site is that the conversations are meaningful. Occasionally, there’s a squabble, but on the whole, this is infinitely preferable to the garbage vomited onto the New York Times site or, shudder, the atrocity called the LATimes.
        And speaking of which: Ted, I hope you’re well. Any updates on the LATimes?

      • «In America, specifically in our long, indefensible, disgusting history filled with acts that would have made Himmler gag, lynching was the preferred method of bringing blacks to heel.» Thank you, Alex, for the lecture, but in my reading of US history, the gun played as vital a role as the rope in «brińging blacks to heel» ; one outstanding example of which will soon celebrate (?) its 100th anniversary. And indeed, given the fact that today, US cops seem to choose firearms rather than the rope as the tool of choice with which to murder unarmed blacks, I suggest that hanging is no more – and no less – «racist» than shooting….

        Henri

      • Henri,

        First off, sorry about the lecture tone of the prior message. I’m just so fed up with all the Obama gushing/Bush bashing (when they’re both just awful) and how I’m seeing the same crap with people trying to argue that Biden is, somehow, a much better deal than Trump.
        Second, “grow some balls” has a clearly understood metaphorical content. However, I cannot come up with a metaphorical criticism of someone’s lack of commitment that involves guns. I can say that someone “shot to the top” or “went off like a shot” or “shot off his mouth,” and no one will jump up in fury and harangue me for using gun-imagery, but I don’t know of any idiom involving a gun that means someone needs to be more assertive or bold. So I don’t think there’s an opportunity for the professional outage taker to link it to the racist angle.

      • «First off, sorry about the lecture tone of the prior message.» No problem, Alex, I merely wanted to understand the juxtaposition. Even if it doesn’t quite work for me, now I understand where you’re coming from….

        Henri

  3. What do I care? So what if all the little people die sometime in the future? I got mine, and the world will probably last long enough for me to enjoy it. Nothing else matters.

    Signed,
    Richie Rich

    • A reaction to excess of the rich….

      Births in the U.S. have fallen in 10 of the last 11 years since peaking in 2007. The trend sees the USA following Europe and of course Japan in its falling birthrates. In the USA, we historically have had immigration to drive population growth, but under the current administration, that is at risk

      Americans are over burdened with debt and worries: student loans, rotten wages, being outsourced or replaced by H1B visa labor, health care cost, not to mention endless war and the environment disasters. The reaction, many people are skipping children. That does have some Richie Rich types worried, fewer workers, fewer consumers and less wars…..their palatium spoon offspring might have to lower their sights and sell one of the mansions and the jet. How can they keep up with the Super Trust fund Jones without armies of consumers, what a nightmare.
      The wealthy guys tuned into trend, are beginning lecture the masses of on the joy of family and tell . For many couples it takes two incomes and or two jobs just to keep their heads above water without kids. Hey Richie for every action there is a reaction.

      China’s birth rates fall in several regions in 2018: China Daily

      SHANGHAI (Reuters) – China’s birth rate in several regions, including the capital Beijing, fell again in 2018, the official China Daily said on Friday, despite government efforts to encourage couples to have more children. Same deal in China, make life too hard and you get less life.

      Finally from China comes this far beyond normal story…
      Story by alexis.carey@news.com.au

      Eccentric billionaire Jack Ma has sparked outrage after informing staff they need to have sex six times in six days in order to reach “marriage KPIs”.
      The 54-year-old founder and former CEO of e-commerce giant Alibaba made the surprising comments recently at a company wedding, declaring the key to a balanced personal life came down to the bizarre “669” rule.

      “At work, we emphasize the spirit of 996. In life, we should follow 669,” Mr Ma told couples gathered before him, according to the ABC. “We want 669 in life. What is 669? Six times in six days, the emphasis is on nine.” He also encouraged them to “work happily and live seriously”, and said the “KPI” of marriage was to procreate.

      “The first KPI of marriage is to have results. There must be products. What is the product? Have children,” Mr Ma said.
      “Marriage is not for the purpose of accumulating wealth, not for buying a house, not for buying a car, but for having a child together.”

      In Chinese numerology, the number nine is considered to be auspicious, and it is also associated with being “long lasting”.
      Mr Ma‘s comments were also shared by Alibaba on Weibo — China’s answer to Facebook — complete with a winking emoji.

      However, the post has since been deleted following an outpouring of anger at the comments, which some Weibo users described as “disgusting”.

      The reference to “996” at the beginning of Mr Ma’s controversial quotes relates to comments he made last month about China’s workforce.

      At the time, he said working grueling 12-hour days and 72-hour weeks were a “blessing”, and that employees should follow the so-called “996 system” — working from 9am to 9pm, six days a week.
      “I personally think that being able to do 996 is a huge blessing that many companies and employees do not have the opportunity to have,” Mr. Ma said in April.
      “If you do not do 996 when you are young, when will you? Do you think never having to work 996 in your life is an honor to boast about? If you join Alibaba, you should get ready to work 12 hours a day, otherwise why do you come to Alibaba? We do not need those who comfortably work eight hours.
      “If you do not pay the price, how will you gain?”

      Unsurprisingly, Mr Ma’s comments sparked a backlash, with many claiming the rule could affect the health of workers and even send them to an intensive care unit.
      But it is a stance supported by other Chinese business leaders, with fellow e-commerce founder Richard Liu of JD.com saying China’s rapid growth had increased the number of “slackers”.
      “ … the number of slackers has rapidly grown! If this carries on, JD will have no hope! And the company will only be heartlessly kicked out of the market! Slackers are not my brothers!” he said.
      However, Mr. Ma eventually clarified his controversial opinion, explaining that working such long hours permanently was “unsustainable”.
      “No one likes working at a company that forces you to do 996. Not only is it inhumane, it’s unhealthy and even more unsustainable for long periods — plus workers, relatives and the law do not approve of it. In the long term, even if you pay a higher salary, employees will all leave,” he said in a follow-up Weibo post.
      China’s official labor law prohibits more than 36 hours of overtime a month.
      Mr. Ma — who has a staggering net worth of around $55 billion, making him the richest man in China — is himself a father of three.
      Many believed Mr. Ma’s 669 comments were an attempt to start a mini baby boom in the face of China’s declining population.

      • Capitalism is captialism, whether in the US or in China (or, for that matter, here in Sweden). Let us hope that the current all-out war by the capitalists in the US on their Chinese counterparts’ technological and economic development doesn’t lead to a shooting war, which will bring the short happy life of H sapiens sapiens on this planet to an abrubt end….

        Henri

  4. WRONG QUESTION…Why don’t we set more limits on CEO’s is the right question.
    CEO’s are hired to make money, everything else is just a little PR to bright up the corporate image. if CEO’s don’t bring in high returns the are replaced by more driven money grabbers that will push the limits(sometimes exceed the limits) to boost profits, good for investors but often not so good for everyone else. In the past we set limits on greed, we passed laws against slavery, child labor, open dumping of toxic waste, clean air standards…ect. But now things are stalled and in many cases being rolled back.
    Why can legislators set tougher and tougher green (science based and doable) standards every decade and back it up with tough enforcement, jail time and massive fines? We all know the reason, most legislators are too afraid of corporate power and big donors backing a rival next election.

    Most CEO’s of large corporations are money driven jerks, that is how they got the job. Often they are second are third generation jerks, so their parents got them in to the right schools and helps them make the right connections…they don’t spent time in places suffering from climate change or toxic waste, they don’t spend time around people that worry about their bills or toxic waste. The world still looks fine from the luxury ski chalet.

      • Glaciers don’t make great places tp ski because of the crevasses in them but I get the shorter snow seasons due to climate change.

        In land of CEO’s and big investors:
        The view from the ski chalet, first of all as the ski season gets shorter raise the prices so only the members of the serious money club can have the best ski month to themselves. if the snow is still a bit thin in the Swiss Alps call out the snow making machines or start vacationing in Norway or the Canadian Rockies, When that goes, try Alaska or Greenland, When all else fails build indoor air conditioned ski runs than run a mile or more down a hillside and charge and arm and leg to use them. When you have big money it is so much easier to deal with problems, even the ones you had a sizable part in making.

        Why do the workers breath the smoke from wildfires or deal with storms threatening their homes, they should have followed our financial advice and built up an emergency fund to be mobile, and or be ready to rebuild out pocket….They should have saved some extra funds to deal with the price spikes after a disaster.

        Back in the everyday world:

        Too bad most people are just getting on in wages that haven’t keep up with inflation by so cutting back on luxuries, what luxuries? To follow the financial talking heads advice would look something like this:

        If people saved every coin by wearing every bit of clothing until it fell apart, never took a pleasure trip, turned out the lights at 9 p.m. and never had a major health problem despite the pollution and the feeling your job could outsourced next week they would have a sizable emergency/retirement fund to deal with things, on top of costly insurance that many people discover only covers a fraction of lost in a disaster. One disaster and your accounts are cleaned out, what then?

      • «When you have big money it is so much easier to deal with problems, even the ones you had a sizable part in making.» Indeed. But when the problems become truly global in scope, perhaps even the big bucks won’t save their «owners» (I leave aside the issue of who owns whom)….

        Hubris is always followed by Nemesis ; the sad thing is that even we others are taken along for the ride….

        Henri

    • According to Forbes, CEO is the #1 top job for sociopaths.

      Me, I think we should outsource the CEO job, there’s someone in India willing to do it for a dollar a day.

Leave a Reply