Today I checked out a great article suggested in our Comm. class. The article concerns the organization “one percent for the environment”, which pledges businesses to donate 1% of their annual revenue to environmental projects. This article, combined with today’s environmental class and pre-reading, has got me very excited to see businesses taking serious consideration and action in helping the environment.

I had become quite pessimistic about environmental change. I felt that the people who were pro-environment were not making a significant impact on changing things. It turns out that I underestimated the influence that these people could have on consumers by simply informing them on the issue. In my opinion eco-change will only happen If it’s implemented through people with influence and capital, ie. Politicians and businesses. Now, thanks in part to increased awareness about the issue, the popularity of environmentalism has tipped. I also believe that business will only go green if there’s an economic incentive to. Now that being green has gone mainstream, there is a clear benefit to market a company as being green, in that companies will attract more eco-aware customers. I’m now optimistic to see how businesses will innovate to develop green.

This article concerns the heavily argued debate over whether or not the benefits of getting a post-secondary education outweigh the costs. Although I agree with the article that college is worth it (I am a bit biased), I believe that just physically being at college is not enough. There are clear things that students can do in 4 years to make college tenure truly worthwhile.

In my opinion, what students get out of college depends what they put in. Another article that was linked on the original that advises against college enrollment says that many students never end up graduating from college. However, much of this dropout group consists of people who were in the bottom quarter of their high school class. If academics don’t play to student’s strengths then they shouldn’t force themselves to go to college. For many students, if they hard then they can minimize their risk of this happening.

The second, and perhaps more important thing to do is get as involved in college groups as possible. Especially in business, employers are looking for students who are executives of clubs and activities. This shows initiative and a willingness to work, while also giving you access to higher paying jobs than non-college(fig.1).

It’s pretty hard to disagree with what Justin’s blog (and his posted article) are saying. In business, some level of jerkiness is required. The people who are shrewd and can make controlling and potentially unpopular decisions in the workplace often have the advantage against people who aren’t. However, I would point out that executives with a “for the good of my company at all costs” mentality could obscure for themselves what is ethical business practice, and what isn’t.

In class we talked about how the most dangerous kind of unethical practice is when people come to believe that what they are doing wrong is actually right. When you are a “jerk” about your company, ethics can take a back seat to company hegemony. If Steve Jobs was willing to authorize a break-in into someone’s house over the early release of an iphone prototype, then how much farther away is breaking into a competitor’s office building for business information?

Do success and jerkiness have to come as a pair? Warren Buffett, a well known business “nice guy”, is also one of the most successful businessmen alive, his net worth $39billion. Businesses can be successful without resembling the “Gestapo”.

If companies restored the land after they were finished mining in the area, they could change much of this landscape back into natural habitat.

There has been an ongoing debate surrounding the Alberta Oil Sands, the estimated 15.7 trillion dollar business that has pitted environmentalists against the tar sands business. It frustrates me that the debate can only have two seemingly incompatible stances- environment or profit. Why can’t it be both?
Tar sands certainly have serious environmental problems which there are no easy solutions to. Efforts to reduce tailings, the economically unprofitable toxic waste from the open pit mines, have been largely ineffective. However there are many simple solutions to environmental concerns that have been ignored by oil sands companies. For example, If before companies moved on to a new mining area they had to restore a previously mined area of similar size to its natural state, Pembina, a pro-environmental institute, contends that there would be “no impact on oil production”*, making it a much more ethically attractive business for people concerned about the environment.
Environmentalists, on the other hand, must realize that there is very little chance of the hugely profitable business shutting down, given its economic potential. Instead of condemning the business entirely and alienating themselves from others, environmentalists should focus on the simple solutions to the environment that are compatible with companies making their profits.