Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
So is there an environmental crisis, or not?
That's often how the question gets framed.
Is climate change something to worry about?
Is melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice a polarizing debate
in your country as much as it is tin the U.S?
What about pollution? What about air, water, land pollution?
What about hazardous waste?
What about over population, when people have argued as over consumption?
What about bio diversity, the idea that life itself means there must
be a certain amount of diversity of species for life itself to exist.
Well, one way to think about this is to
think, you know, we have to wait for the facts.
Science will tell us
whether or not there's an environmental crisis and
we just have to wait for more studies.
Now, the problem with this idea is that it It turns on thinking about science.
As if its value free, as if, its
just the facts, and that's all science tells us.
But we know that science itself, the questions that we ask and the way we frame
these questions Even the methods we use have values built into them.
This was demonstrated to me by professor of
mine named Richard Rudner, now a long past away.
He wrote a paper called, The
Scientist Qua Scientist.
The scientist as scientist, makes value judgements.
And he talked about, in the 1940s, Enrico Fermi, a physicist,
was involved in the Manhattan Project for the first nuclear bomb.
And they were doing what essentially the first nuclear chain reaction.
And as, as I told the story, they all knew that the probability,
the, of this nuclear reaction happening in turning
the entire atmosphere into sand was very small.
I mean very small but also nonzero, and the
scientists had to, had to decide that during this experiment.
The possible benefits outweighed the very, very tiny risk.
and we know that the
atmosphere didn't turn to sand, because we're all here.
But none the less, the scientists have to make value judgments.
And this is true in the environment, too.
So this idea that the scientists will tell us the facts and then we get on with it.
is not, it doesn't exactly work, that's
not to say that scientific studies aren't relevant.
But using judgement to sort out which are relevant, what they
tell us, and then trying to make
wise policy decisions, is a very complicated process.
Other people will argue you know, we've got
to act now, we've got to save the planet.
And I've always thought that I didn't have much
you know interest in this argument, because I've
always thought the planet was going to be fine.
I mean we may not be here, but I'm pretty sure the planet will be.
The third argument here is that, we really already lost so many species,
that the biodiversity can't really support life.
Again, I'm not sure if this is right. I am sure that if it is right,
we better take some time and try to find another place to live.
Well you better take some time and figure
out how to increase the diversity of species.
The subtext of these arguments in environmentalism, is that
it's really the dominant story of business in the background.
Business is often assumed to be the problem, not the solution.
And I'd like to turn the tables
on that partially.
One way I've thought about this, is to
think about something I've called our children's future.
Blaise Pascal was a French philosopher in the, I think the 18th
ce, century may be was the 17th, it was a long time ago.
And Pascal formulated an argument.
He's a famous mathematician and philosopher.
He formulated an argument that said you
know, suppose all these people talking about Christianity
are right. He was not a Christian.
Suppose they are right, suppose there really is a hell.
Well, you know, hell is hot and eternity's a long time.
and living a Christian life is not too bad.
So maybe we should do that just in case.
Well, what if all these environmentalists are right?
Will our children have the same prospects for a future
that we do? I believe we have to take this seriously.
Can business leaders act as if there is an environmental crisis
regards of how the facts, if there are any, turn out?
Can we continue to create value and trade with each other?
Can we continue to improve the well-being of our stakeholders?
In other words, rather than is
there an environment crisis, I want to turn the tables to say, is
there a green capitalism? Can we think about capitalism from the
stand point of how we make the world cleaner, safer, better for our children?
And, how our companies can make our societies better,
improve the standard of living for stakeholders and make money?
I think the answer to that's yes.
And we're seeing the immergence of many different kinds
of business models which help to address these environmental issues.
What I'd like you to think about in the discussion
forums is, what obligations do we owe to our children?
What obligations might we owe to future generations?
Can business be a part
of the solution to our environmental issues?
And I want you to think of, discuss, two or three companies
whose businesses are
built on addressing
environmental issues.