News flash: business responds to market incentives!
I’ve been a big fan of Jared Diamond’s work ever since Guns, Germs, and Steel, and I enjoyed his op-ed yesterday describing how companies like Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, and Chevron are “going green.” But I thought the real lesson of the article got buried in his glowing depiction of these supposedly enlightened companies. If you read ...
I've been a big fan of Jared Diamond's work ever since Guns, Germs, and Steel, and I enjoyed his op-ed yesterday describing how companies like Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, and Chevron are "going green." But I thought the real lesson of the article got buried in his glowing depiction of these supposedly enlightened companies. If you read his account carefully, it's clear that these big businesses didn't suddenly acquire an altruistic concern for the good of the planet; they are simply responding to clear market incentives, reinforced in some cases by intelligent regulation. Walmart is working to reduce its energy expenditures because energy (e.g., fuel for delivery trucks) is expensive; Coca-Cola is worried about water supplies because Coke is mostly made of water and its costs will increase as water becomes scarcer; and Chevron now does more to prevent environmental damage because governments now require it to pay clean-up costs and that's more expensive than preventing oil spills and other environmental mishaps in the first place.
The moral is that we aren't going to get a greener planet if we don't make the cost of environment-damaging activities (like burning fossil fuels or wasting water) substantially more expensive, and if we don't make it harder for those who do the most damage to off-load the costs on someone else. Everyone watching the climate change talks in Copenhagen should keep this lesson firmly in mind: A truly effective solution isn't going to be cost-free, especially in the short-term.
I’ve been a big fan of Jared Diamond’s work ever since Guns, Germs, and Steel, and I enjoyed his op-ed yesterday describing how companies like Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, and Chevron are “going green.” But I thought the real lesson of the article got buried in his glowing depiction of these supposedly enlightened companies. If you read his account carefully, it’s clear that these big businesses didn’t suddenly acquire an altruistic concern for the good of the planet; they are simply responding to clear market incentives, reinforced in some cases by intelligent regulation. Walmart is working to reduce its energy expenditures because energy (e.g., fuel for delivery trucks) is expensive; Coca-Cola is worried about water supplies because Coke is mostly made of water and its costs will increase as water becomes scarcer; and Chevron now does more to prevent environmental damage because governments now require it to pay clean-up costs and that’s more expensive than preventing oil spills and other environmental mishaps in the first place.
The moral is that we aren’t going to get a greener planet if we don’t make the cost of environment-damaging activities (like burning fossil fuels or wasting water) substantially more expensive, and if we don’t make it harder for those who do the most damage to off-load the costs on someone else. Everyone watching the climate change talks in Copenhagen should keep this lesson firmly in mind: A truly effective solution isn’t going to be cost-free, especially in the short-term.
Donald Bowers/Getty Images for The Coca Cola Company
Stephen M. Walt is a columnist at Foreign Policy and the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University. Twitter: @stephenwalt
More from Foreign Policy
Is Cold War Inevitable?
A new biography of George Kennan, the father of containment, raises questions about whether the old Cold War—and the emerging one with China—could have been avoided.
So You Want to Buy an Ambassadorship
The United States is the only Western government that routinely rewards mega-donors with top diplomatic posts.
Can China Pull Off Its Charm Offensive?
Why Beijing’s foreign-policy reset will—or won’t—work out.
Turkey’s Problem Isn’t Sweden. It’s the United States.
Erdogan has focused on Stockholm’s stance toward Kurdish exile groups, but Ankara’s real demand is the end of U.S. support for Kurds in Syria.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
