THE STATE OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Attention: all college students considering a government research career, please avoid the agricultural sector. Some people, including Nature contributors, will try to convince you that agricultural research will rejuvenate, turn a corner, and reach new heights. Don’t buy into the hype. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the government’s new agricultural research department, is already declining after only two years. Compared to the private sector, NIFA is horribly inefficient, invested too heavily in genetically modified crops (GMCs), and under fairly questionable leadership.

Nature argues that NIFA shows signs of improvement. And NIFA does show signs of improvement. The government has increased agricultural research funding 67%. It created more socially oriented goal, such as promoting bioenergy, reducing climate change, and eliminating obesity. A new competitive grant programs will allocate funding more efficiently to these programs. The agricultural community is seizing the chance to tackle the larger issues. Sounds good right?” Of course it does. Closer inspection of the argument reveals several key problems though (A New Roe to Hoe).
As always, the government is horribly inefficient. Then the most recent stimulus package came out, $3 billion went to the National Science Foundation, $10 billion went to the National Institute of Health, and only $176 million went to NIFA, and that could only be used to improve already existing facilities. Obama’s eventual 67% funding increase still only equates to $262 million (still not much far as research goes). The government tries to supplement this funding by running through state universities, hoping to receive additional research money from the university itself. State universities tend to concentrate on regional issues though, and thus get sidetracked with isolated cases that span respectively small areas. While this kind of research improves these individual regions, it often lacks the ability to improve the nation as a whole (Grant).

The private sector is much more adept at conducting agricultural research. The private sector possesses the resources and the money. Large ag corporations’ research and development funding far exceeds the mere $262 million that NIFA currently receives. Better funding helps attract the top agricultural researchers. This is why the private sector owns most of the recent agricultural knowledge and developments via the title “intellectual property”. The government is trying to play catch up. Need proof? Look at the number of patents the private sector put out vs. the amount state funded universities put out. The top six agribusinesses alone pumped out 255 patents in the technology class alone (which includes plant protection, regulating compositions, planting, and GMCs). The top state university, University of California, only put out six patents. Another big advantage the private sector comes from the way it operates. The private sector concentrates almost exclusively on the staple crops essential to today’s markets. The research they provide goes toward the Midwest’s grain and corn industries, the Southeast’s cotton industry, and Florida and California’s citrus industries. The private sector’s superior funding and top researchers combine to produce revolutionary strides to increasing the world’s crop productivity (Grant).

The government’s concentration on GMCs is another reason for its ineffectiveness. The GMS is a new agricultural development and it has created a lot of excitement. They can be pest resistant, disease resistant, and/or herbicide resistant. They can withstand freezing conditions, drought conditions, and poor soil conditions. Plus, they possess extra nutritional benefits. What’s not to like? With its ability to survive harsh conditions and produce high yields, the government it’s found the solution to poor food distribution. It’s no wonder the governments sends so much money into further developing them (Whitman).

However, GMCs possess a dark side. They harm the environment and the body. Their resistance to pests disrupts the food chain. Insects, the base of the food chain, will face significantly reduced populations. The GMCs resistance also reduces pesticide effectiveness.. Now this may not seem like too big of a problem since the crops themselves are pest resistant, but pests eventually will overcome this resistance, and when they overcome it, our pesticides won’t be able to handle them, thus allowing them to ravage our crops. Add in the chance of unintended cross breeding. If GMC genes get transferred to non-target species, they may create super-weeds. As for human health effects, the possibilities can be frightening. Many times the genes used in GMCs come from other plants that possess desired attributes. The new gene may happen to trigger a potentially deadly allergic reaction. The big problem concerning GMCs is presented in the long list of possible side effects. The long-term health effects of GMCs can not be studied due to their newness. NIFA is investing money into GMCs, taking a gamble that they can be consumed safely. We may later discover that NIFA spent several years and millions of dollars on a project detrimental to our health (Whitman).

President Obama appointed Robert Beachy as head of NIFA in 2008; not the wisest choice. Robert Beachy is one of the great experts in the field of plant biotechnology. His work with Monsanto Company did lead to the word’s first GMC. But his overconfidence in GMCs’ importance makes him too biased to navigate the complex bureaucratic world. Beachy is convinced that GMCs are the future and will pour disproportionate funding their way. However, agricultural research is more than just GMCs. One viable alternative, sustainable organic crops. Its how we farmed for centuries, and yet we still find new methods for improving yields. Ask any farmer, while taking risks is part of the business, the real key to success is diversifying. That means funding both GMCs and sustainable organic corps. Not just one. And Robert Beachy will not do this (Grant).

President Obama nominated Islam Siddiqui to the post of Chief Agricultural Negotiator in 2010, and tough the appointment has not been approved yet by the Senate, this is another ill-conceived choice. He comes from a strong corporate background with connections to almost every biotechnology corporation. He was a registered lobbyist for big corporations. I think we know where his loyalty truly lies. And both Siddiqui and big business remain out of touch with NIFA’s goals. NIFA wants to improve not just the US’s agriculture, but the world’s. These goals include reducing pesticide and herbicide dependence. This though, would marginalize these corporations’ income and Siddiqui will not allow this. So rather than encouraging research to reduce agriculture’s chemical dependence and Helping NIFA become a successful and worthy member of the USDA, he will encourage the continues practice: sell overpriced goods to struggling nations and reap the benefits of high interest rates (Velazquez).

Beachy’s GMC reliance represents the type of one-dimensionalism that can potentially ruin NIFA. One can look at it like putting all you money in one stock that shows some promise, but whose consistency remains unproven. Things may work out in the end (GMCs will solve all our problems). But the chance that things go horribly wrong still exists (GMCs will not solve all our problems and will create new ones). Siddiqui’s appointment hurts NIFA because he really promotes the private sector, rather than the government, thus interfering with NIFA’s attempted ascent.
The government simply does not exhibit what it takes to be an effective medium for agricultural research. Sure, funding has been increased, but if you look more closely, you realize that the private sector still spends much more on research and development. The private sector remains far more efficient, putting out tons more patents that address the national staple crops. The government’s heavy investment parallels the proverb of putting all one’s eggs in a basket. Lastly, leadership is questionable. The current leadership may lead the department will astray and make it further irrelevant. College students, if you desire a career in government research, especially those looking into agricultural research, consider first looking at the private sector. The opportunities are so much greater.

Grant, Bob. "Can USDA be ag's NIH?." The Scientist. The Scientist, 27 Oct 2009. Web. 30 Sept 2010. .

Whitman, Deborah. "Genetically Modified Foods: Helpful or Harmful?." CSA. CSA, April 2000. Web. 5 Oct 2010. .

Velazquez, Shelia. "Losing Our Food Freedom." Bear Market News. N.p., 31 Oct 2009. Web. 5 Oct 2010. .

"A New Roe to Hoe: The Time is Right to Revitalize US Agricultural Research." Nature. Nature, 01 April 2010. Web. 5 Oct 2010. .

The Unnatural and the Unknown

“Beggars can’t be choosers.” This is one of the many attitudes of Americans in regards to starving nations and Genetically Modified Oragnisms (GMOs). It was said by an unnamed and unsaid spokesman when the U.S. tried to force food aid on India. This is the outlook that is making the U.S. and other economically strong nations become diplomatic terrorists. Though this is only one view, and no doubt an extreme out of many regarding GMOs, it is a common idea that GMOs are the best solution to the problem of famine in third world nations. Providing food that could potentially do more harm than good, and that nations do not want to begin with, is unjustified. Current GMOs are not the solution to the problem of famine in third world nations because of poor regulation and distrust of them.

Genetically engineered foods are organisms in which the DNA has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. It is also the process by which desirable genes from one organism are inserted into another. One example of this is the transfer of the gene that keeps fish from getting cold into a potato to keep it from dying in the winter. Undoubtedly, this process is extremely controversial and raises some moral and ethical questions. But this paper is not designed to delve into the ethics of GMOs, rather to discuss why they should not be distributed to other nations.

In his article Regulation Must Be Revolutionized, Ingo Potrykus argues that over regulation is preventing miraculous GMOs, such as golden rice, from saving millions of starving children. Potrykus chairs the  Golden Rice Humanitarian Project and is one of the co-inventors of golden rice. Golden rice is a genetically engineered rice which contains 35 micrograms of vitamin A per grain. This rice, Potrykus claims, could prevent the death of 6,000 per day suffering from vitamin A deficiency, as well as save the sight of several hundred thousand people per year. He believes discrimination the rice receives is scientifically unjustified and that genetically engineered crops, on the whole, are benign (Potrykus).

Introducing Western technologically in which some crops become resistant to antibiotics, into already unstable environments without a strong form of health care is not a good idea. GMOs pose threats to nations where people are already sick with diseases such has HIV/Aids, deficient immune systems, widespread bacterial diseases, and outdated antibiotics. Next, these new crops come with a whole list of risks associated with them, which Potrykus fails to mention in his argument. They include, but are not limited to, causing toxins and allergens in foods, effects associated with unnatural foods, contamination of the already existing water and food supply, creation of resistant weeds, the potential outbreak of diseases such as Mad Cow Disease, the loss of biodiversity within crops, a disturbance in the ecological balance, and lingering side-effects which are passed down from generation to generation. Moreover, scientifically proven facts point to the following about created toxins in foods: the introduced gene may act differently upon the host gene than what was originally expected, the host’s genetic intelligence will be disrupted, the interaction between the introduced gene and the host gene are unpredictable, and therefore there is no way of knowing the overall effect of GMOs on people who consume them.

So why do we think that GMOs will solve the problem of hunger? In reality, they are causing a second problem that may be worse than the original! One article argues the risks associated with GMOs are overstated, and that researchers are taking the utmost precaution in their production. Though it may be true that researchers are careful, it does not change the fact that the effects of these foods on those who are eating them, are unknown and have been researched to be harmful. Besides just the physical risks associated, ethical risks come with the introduction of GMOs to poorer countries. For example, maize syrup versus sugar cane syrup. Maize is now used to produce syrup for soft drinks and other sweeteners. The maize syrup replaces traditional sweeteners that come from sugar cane. The end result is sugar farmers being put out of business which only further devastates the economy.  Essentially, we are giving countries an even bigger problem as our solution to their problem, and people pick up on this.

Not only are GMOs an unsafe solution for third world nations, these nations don’t want anything to do with them. A recent article divulged the truth that many of these nations face hardships in rejecting GMOs that the U.S. and other economically strong countries force on them. Just a few of the many countries include: Sri Lanka, Mexico, Thailand, China, the Philippines, and India. On the 1st of May 2000, Sri Lanka banned the imports of GMOs due to the untested nature of them. Upon the discovery of imported chocolates, soups, and oils found to contain GMOs, the government renewed the ban one year later. The U.S. used the World Trade Organization to threaten sanctions tend days later. The president of Sri Lanka sent a strongly-worded letter to President Bush demanding they stop exporting. Peasants started rebelling and many letters were sent to the U.S. by groups asking them to stop. Their pleas were ignored and Sri Lanka surrendered to threats by the U.S. In November 2000, Mexico’s senate unanimously passed a law for GMO labeling on foods. Three months later, the U.S. had already started imposing threats via the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement. Thailand, China, and the Phillipines have all experienced the same types of threats from the U.S. government, especially in the early part of the second millennium. Clearly, these nations are intelligent and know they do not want aid from the U.S. in terms of GMOs. The real question will be, are we intelligent enough to listen?

Untested and potentially dangerous GMOs should not be exported to third world nations. Ingo Potrykus, along with others argue that genetically modified rice and other crops will solve the problem of world famine. The reality is, they have not been helping, and these nations want nothing to do with them. In time, GMOs could become a safe and reliable option for distribution. However, many of the problems associated with GMOs must be worked out and approved by the nations receiving them, before the mass dispersal of this unnatural phenomenon.

"New Type of Rice to Help Third World Countries." GMO Food for Thought. Web. 27 Sept. 2010. <http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2005/07/new_type_of_rice_to_help_third.html>.

Potrykus, Ingo. "Access : Regulation Must Be Revolutionized : Nature." Nature Publishing Group : Science Journals, Jobs, and Information. 28 July 2010. Web. 27 Sept. 2010. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/full/466561a.html>.

Rangarirai, By. "GMOs A Bomb Waiting to Explode - SEATINI." SEATINI Website STRENGTHENING AFRICA IN WORLD TRADE. Web. 27 Sept. 2010. <http://www.seatini.org/publications/factsheets/gmo.htm>.

"Say No To GMOs! - Global South 2." Say No To GMOs! - Getting Started. Web. 27 Sept. 2010. <http://www.saynotogmos.org/global_south2.htm>.

"WHO | 20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods." Web. 29 Sept. 2010. <http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/>.

What Is Your Education Worth?

“The children are our future.” Numerous great minds through-out American history have utilized these words, and it does not take much analysis to know just how fundamentally true this statement is. Yet if this adage is still true, why are the educational possibilities of today’s students being put under the cross-hairs of vicious federal budget cuts? As the United States sets to cut back funding to its non-defense research and development department, one of the main severances will occur to research funding and grants to universities nationwide. Across America schools just like ours will be forced to deal with a sudden loss of spending money and will have to make many cuts to remain open to students. Certain minds, however, that feel the budget slashing will help by refocusing colleges and eliminating unproductive research. I, as a student myself, hold a very different view on this matter and the negative aspects that it promises to the educational experience, such as restrictions on learning, decreases in efficiency and the raise of costs to students themselves.

In her article, Financial Pain Should Focus Universities, Diane Auer Jones presents her argument that cutbacks of revenue for Universities are not punishments, and that they will in fact make colleges become more productive. She projects how the past few years of prosperous grants and funding have “shifted the focus of formerly teaching-intensive institutions away from their undergraduate-education mission” (Jones). In this sense, she says that many colleges have placed too much emphasis on gaining extra money for their research departments and have let many other segments of their institutions slip by the wayside. Even thought there is an increased emphasis in the research realm, it is not on making actual discoveries or constructing revolutionary new procedures. Drafting proposals and securing grants for the costly research facilities receive the brunt of the focus. As researchers and teachers compete for the revenue, their dedication to teaching declines; leading to a “devolution of academic quality for the large majority” (Jones). Jones leads this point into how reducing funds could force more unity in scientific research programs. Professors burdened by the ever-enticing prospect of extra grants will no longer be dedicated to pursuing them, but rather on the true issue of teaching. Overall, colleges across the United States will once again come to a balance between teaching and research that had been skewed strongly in favor of the later department. Jones ends her relation by pressing that these positives will prove much more important than the ‘short-term’ drawbacks that budget cutting will have.

In my opinion though, these ‘short-term’ drawbacks will prove tthemselves anything but minor in their impact on restrictions surrounding student’s educational freedom. My most direct recourse about the limitations that will occur through federal budget cuts is that it greatly damages the ability students have to experience the “frustration of failed experiments, followed by successes leading to new knowledge” (Morford). I know that this applies whole-heartily to me as a collegiate student, in that I have learned valuable lessons in being able to pursue outside-the-box research. This broad avenue of learning would be considerably narrowed however if research funding is severed. The flow of free thought and expanse of the students future will be reigned in as universities are forced to lessen or even halt many special student related projects and services. And as specialty services and opportunities are let go, so are certain majors that had previously been available to students. When a major cannot be eliminated, such as the powerhouses that are Biology and Chemistry, many previously required criteria are done away with. This includes lowering classes needed to earn a major in the subject, to “dropping the laboratory requirements for non-science majors taking science courses” (Pope). I know it’s weird to think that a college student would be upset that he would have to take fewer courses to earn his major, but I truly feel that having to eliminate classes, and even entire subjects, because of a lack of money is an injustice to education.

Further, as Ms. Jones describes how the elimination of some of these “unnecessary” research facilities and subjects will improve efficiency in American universities, I cannot help but
get a bitter taste in my mouth. While some projects may not be the most practical, I do not believe that taking chunks out of a universities wallet will make efficiency rise. In fact, since the budget cuts will not target research departments singularly, many other aspects of colleges will be affected as well; leading to an imposed inefficiency that is rather contradictory to the scene painted by those who portray the cuts as a good thing. As subjects and classes are targeted and eliminated, students that were in them have to scurry into other rooms and fields. This leads to stuffed classes and students having to take courses in subjects that hold little to no interest to them. In Delgado Community College, classes that shouldn’t hold more that twenty-five students are being packed with up to thirty-three; which, as Professor Pat Roux stated, “is not conductive to good learning.”

In a full double-edged sword manner, even with students sardined into classes like never before, universities have to eliminate staff members because they can no longer pay their salary. It is not hard to see how the enlarged classes and cut staff go hand in hand with the erosion or educational efficiency, with a prime example occurring at Berkeley university in California. Here from 2008 to 2010 eight hundred million dollars were subtracted from their budget; resulting in the “recruitment of only ten faculty members this year instead of the usual one hundred” (Ricci). More impending forms of inefficiency lie in the increased reliance on electronic devices to provide education. Without professors, many courses can only be taken through online methods, which in many areas are notorious for their difficulty and lack of personal contact to educate the student. Aside from this method, course selection becomes increasingly sparse as they are quickly packed with students or eliminated all together. This leads to the figurehead for a loss in efficiency: longer time required to graduate.

Sure, college years can be some of the best years of your life, but it would be a hard goal to find a student on campus one day that would say they would want to stay for a few years longer than the standard four that it takes to graduate. The reason for this can be summed up in a simple phrase that business men have lived by for a long time; ‘Time is money.’ While this is usually a Wall Street mantra, few places is it truer than in the world of higher education. With relation to a loss of efficiency, when students cannot get into the classes needed for their major they simply cannot graduate on time. At the University of San Francisco, some students have only been able to enroll in two courses, and are seeing that their plans of a four year graduation are being erased. Such is the case with senior Michael Redogliaa, who found his chances at graduating pushed back a full year; he simply stated that the setback of limited courses was “killing me financially.”

As universities see their loss of funding occurring they must find money from other sources to continue to be academically relevant. Unfortunately for students like you and me, one source of this revenue comes from increases in tuition charges and educational fees. These increases are twice as impactful on admitted students because admissions numbers are dropping as well. This is because universities are unable to accommodate the number of students they could when they had funding to support more classes. Another aspect of cost that concerns me on a personal level is that prospect of the elimination of certain financial aid programs. I am a Covenant Scholar here at UNC and without the aid I receive from the university there is a good chance that I would not be attending college at all. Knowing that because of budget cuts that many people like me are now living in a limbo realm; iwhere they cannot be sure they will be able to continue their education since their respective universities have not promised a renewal of their aid, seriously riles me.

There is no doubt in my mind that Ms. Jones presents her optimistic outlook from a well educated standpoint. But for me it seems all too much like she has detached herself from the true impacts that budget cuts will have on the students, teachers and overall opportunities that college is all about. Without the ability to pursue, fail, learn and eventually succeed that is available in the research departments of many universities, students miss a key part of the educational process. This loss is made further tragic by the increase in inefficiency and increased cost to the funds of the students themselves. When the senior vice president for finance and administration at the University of Georgia, Tim Burgess, says that because of the budget cuts that he is having to “think about the prospect of literally tearing the university apart;” it shows that cutting research funding causes quakes far beyond merely the “unproductive” facilities that the cuts are claimed to highlight. The advocates can claim cuts will refocus colleges all they want, but until they have to sit outside a stuffed class and try to hear a lecture, or have to wonder every night if they will be able to get the money they need to continue their education; I say that it is the voice of the students that should carry the most weight. And as a student, I say that we should take some of the spirit we show at home games and apply it in showing that we are against budget cuts that erode our education!



Budget Cuts Will ‘Reap’ Education If We Let Them



Sources:
Jones, Diane. "Financial Pain Should Focus Univeristies." Nature 465.7294 (2010): 32-33. Web. 25 Sep 2010. .

Ricci, Sabrina. "Opinion and Editorial." Associatedcontent.com. Associated Content, 12 nov 2009. Web. 25 Sep 2010. .

Pope, John. "New Orleans Metro Educational News." NOLA. NOLA, 30 Jan 2010. Web. 25 Sep 2010. .

Ensley, Mimi. "Administration News." Red and Black. Red and Black, 01 Mar 2010. Web. 25 Sep 2010. .

Picture:
http://balmung6.deviantart.com/

Solving the Climate Crisis

We all know that big business damages the environment, but get this: the carbon emissions of Wal-Mart are close to those of Croatia, a small eastern European nation. And despite the near-constant presence of global warming in the media, very little has been done to prevent its potentially disastrous effects. According to Genevieve Patenaude in “Climate class for business schools”, it’s because efforts have been directed at the public. She suggests that we instead focus on the future business leaders, since companies contribute a large amount of greenhouse gases. The thing is, we can’t force businesses to care, especially if it isn’t profitable. We need to solve the problem by creating strong, long-term legal policies that businesses can work within, not by giving business leaders more information and hoping that they make the right choices or by continuing to rely on the efforts of individual citizens.

Before we can ask how to solve the problem, what exactly is the issue with carbon emissions? Carbon emissions, which mainly come from burning fossil fuels and deforestation, lead to global warming. In a 2009 study at Concordia University, it was found that there is a direct, linear link to the total amount of carbon emitted and the increase in global temperature. To be specific, one tonne of carbon dioxide, emitted over any amount of time, results in a 0.0000000000015 increase in world temperature. And we’ve already emitted about a half trillion tonnes since the start industrial revolution. So, unless we want to see global temperature increase, water levels rise, and coasts destroyed, we have to solve this problem and cut down on carbon emissions.

For the last couple of decades we have been hearing calls to change our ways and reduce our negative environmental impacts. But, so far, the attempts made to encourage change—most of which are directed at the individual—have been fairly ineffective. There’s pressure to buy a hybrid car, to cut down on electricity, to recycle, and to buy local products. But for a lot of us, making some of these changes can be expensive or inconvenient, and the dedicated attempts of a few people won’t make up for the apathy of the majority—which only decreases the chances of the average person making a change. If my spending extra money for organic vegetables from local farmers will hardly make a difference on a global scale, why shouldn’t I just buy the cheapest ones at my local supermarket? Why shouldn’t I keep using an old, gas-guzzling truck instead of looking for a new, more efficient car? It’s these attitudes that lead us to look for change in the larger producers, businesses and nations.

Unfortunately, national and international policies have been ineffective as well. A key example is the climate policy created by the European Union, which has been called "grossly distorting and expensive” by economist Dieter Helm. Instead of focusing on cutting down consumption of fossil fuels, it tries to cut down on production. While the doesn’t sound so bad at first, it means that Europe can meet these objectives by relying on overseas energy production, which would most likely increase global carbon emissions due to the extra shipping and less efficient production techniques in developing nations. The policy also relies on an inefficient carbon permit trading scheme, and alternative energy sources that are still too expensive and not yet well developed. Overall, it seems unlikely to meet its goals or make any significant change in carbon emissions.

Since these current attempts haven’t worked, it’s clear that we need to find a different solution, and Genevieve Patenaude argues that the best one would come from businesses. According to her article in Nature, the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by one large company is often close to the amount emitted by one small nation, as shown with Wal-Mart and Croatia, and so we can’t ignore the role of big business. Instead, she insists that we must target business students, the future leaders of these companies, and integrate classes on climate change and sustainability into the business curriculum.

But why would targeting business students work any better than previous attempts? According to Patenaude, one important reason is that “a more effective way of transmitting new ideas is through discussions with near peers”. This means that business students, which are in the same social and educational group as climate researches, would be more receptive to these ideas and more likely to take action than an audience of the general public. In addition, many companies are looking to profit from becoming more “green”, and so the information can be valuable on a business level as well. By reaching these future business leaders before they graduate from an MBA program, they would likely be more open to working with climate researches and making the changes needed to cut down on their carbon emissions.

While Patenaude offers a few examples of where business and environmental research have combined, she explains that there is very little mention of climate change or global warming in both business publications and the curriculum of most business programs, indicating that for the most part these fields haven’t been working together. Her suggestion is to follow the lead of Yale’s Center for Business and the Environment, and create programs where the two fields can share knowledge and work together to make a difference. Or, at the very least, give climate change a larger role in obtaining a business degree.

Here’s the issue: we can teach business students about climate change and sustainability, but we can’t force them to take action. From my experience as an undergraduate business student at NYU Stern, profit is the main concern, not ethics. The majority of first-year students had already decided on majoring in finance, hoping for a career on Wall Street, but most had no reason for it other than the pay. At the end of a lecture on sustainability and how it can be profitable, I heard a fellow student declare, “Finally it’s over, I’m so sick of this liberal bullshit” when no politics had been nor needed to be involved in the lecture at all. And, in numerous debates and discussions, I saw an insistence that business had no responsibility to society other than to bring in as much profit as possible.

Of course, these were undergraduate freshman, not MBA students, and Stern may not be typical of business schools; but it’s not just me that believes it’s not so easy to get through to business students. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal discusses ethics oaths in MBA students, specifically stating that they aren’t enough when it comes to keeping business practices ethical. Despite promises to behave morally, and programs in leadership and ethics, scandals continue to exist in the business world. Good intentions and few classes haven’t been enough to stop unethical behavior, and so they’re not likely to spur a major change in attempts to reduce carbon emissions.

The truth is that while a business might want to make changes, it first has to consider if it can afford to. According to a survey from the University of Waikato in New Zealand, during a recession—which is when profit matters most—small businesses are much more likely to cut down on sustainability practices. So, while they may love the idea of going green and preventing global warming, in the end it is money that counts for more. Overall, the number of businesses in New Zealand that were becoming more sustainable during the recession decreased, with increased sustainability efforts coming mainly from larger businesses that were already centered around being environmentally friendly. Other businesses were more concerned with simply “trying to survive.”

Even among the businesses that can afford to become more sustainable, we aren’t seeing much change, and this may be because there’s little legal motivation. A survey described in The Independent indicates that the problem is, specifically, in the climate change policies that nations have adopted. According to the article, climate change concerns do affect how most companies run their businesses, but the policies put forth by the government are not encouraging any real change. Emissions trading schemes, a strategy often considered in climate policies, was seen as unfavorable and ineffective by businesses, while regulation was seen as the most effective. But, clearly the level of regulation needed hasn’t been achieved. In fact, under the current policies, businesses responded that they didn’t feel comfortable making any long-term plans to combat climate change.

The way to solve the problem is to give businesses what they’re asking for: long-term, government regulated policies that they must work within to reduce carbon emissions. When it becomes a legal issue, companies no longer have the option of not caring, and executives feel more comfortable making the changes that they need. They’ll know that if they do center their business plan around meeting government objectives, they won’t need to change it shortly after to meet the requirements of new regulation. And, getting the government involved makes sustainability less optional; it forces even the companies without the good intent to reduce emissions to cut down on carbon consumption. In addition, it could create rewards for the businesses based on their emissions—such as tax breaks for sustainability uptake—that would make cutting emissions more affordable.

And, of course, these legal policies would need to apply to the nations as well. Instead of focusing only on corporate emissions, the bills would have to also provide a plan for cutting fossil fuel consumption by citizens and government agencies. This could include anything from making alternate energy sources more accessible, to gas rationing, to investing in more public transportation. Or, it could involve any other policy that would lead people to decreasing their carbon footprints. The important part is for there to be something that motivates even those that are reluctant to change. If governments throughout the world can create strong policies that really encourage businesses, and entire nations, to change, then we’ll begin to see a noticeable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and real progress towards preventing global warming.


Patenaude, Genevieve. “Climate class for business schools.” Nature 466, 30 (01 July 2010). Web. 13 Oct. 2010.

Image: Nature “Climate Class”