The production processes of products associated with power, gasoline and chemicals are the largest producers of greenhouse emissions (pollution), which scientists associate with man made climate change.
So who’s to blame?
Are any of these groups evil?
Thye aren’t evil for producing said power/gas/chemicals, but they may be evil for buying politicians/scientists to promote the denial of climate change, and lobbying against any environmental regulation that might decrease their large profit margins.
There is nothing inherently evil about mega corporations, but in the current business climate nice guys finish last, and so by a Darwinian weeding out, the mega corps that currently exist tend to be on the sleazy side.
The corporations are incentivized to be amoral, not evil as such.
So if they disagree with published studies they might be evil.
Wouldn’t the companies just pass along the increased costs of environmental regulation to their customers, if all competitors were subject to the regulations? Could they be lobbying against the regulations for other reasons than increased costs?
What about shareholders or management?
“Producers of chemicals” literally includes the manufacturer of every physical product of any kind in the history of commerce.
Damn their oily hides!
Considering (as just one point) that if they decided to stop the world itself would come crashing down, killing billions, I’d go with ‘no’.
Yep. On the other hand, the modern society that allows you to write all this stuff about evil corporations (and gives us stuff like the ability to grow and distribute food globally, not to mention essentials like new iPhones and such :p) is absolutely dependent on the creation of those products. Sort of a cost to benefits study…thousand, 10’s of thousands even 100’s of thousand or millions MIGHT die, over the next century or so, potentially, from the effects of Global Warming. Billions would certainly die very, VERY rapidly if the companies stopped making gasoline and ‘chemicals’. You do the math.
Varies. None of them are evil for making gasoline or ‘chemicals’, though.
What’s with the evil company kick today Omar? (If you don’t mind me asking). Not to derail the thread but isn’t everything that exists evil to some degree, mainly to the extent that any organic thing has to look after its own interests to survive?
So you define evil, as looking to your own interests? Interesting concept. I would probably more narrowly define it as purposefully looking to cause others harm.
Didn’t you just open the exact same thread about Microsoft?
I understand, you think all liberals–which includes everyone here I guess–think all corporations are evil. And your goal here, if I may speculate, is to get liberals to agree that corporations are evil, and then you spring your trap–“AHA! If corporations that sell gasoline are evil, then how’d you drive to work today!”
Is that your plan?
I’ll take “who’s to blame?” for $100, Alex. And I’m going to go with “the customers that demand these products (you and me)”. Oh, wait… 
I really have no idea what the purported useful purpose of this thread is. There is a fairly universal problem with corporations whose activities produce harmful side effects, pretty much directly proportional to the harm they cause. And that problem is a pattern of self-serving deceit to play down, deny, or cover up that harm because they fear regulatory interference and loss of profitability. It’s been as true for tobacco companies and dishonest financial companies as it is for oil, coal, and power companies. If someone wants to call that “evil” I’m fine with it. If they want to call it something else I’m fine with it, too. Nature and climate change are indifferent to what anyone calls it.
I don’t really know. I think the definition of evil can vary from person to person. I myself don’t think companies are evil for looking after their interests. But then again, bear with me on this, some people think eating animals is evil; I don’t think eating animals is evil, it is what we were designed to do - but then again humans are able to sustain themselves through cannibalism, but that is clearly evil - unless you’re stuck in the mountains after your plane crashes and you have nothing else to eat and the people are already dead, then it’s sort of evil and sort of gross. Also, If you are a parent and it’s your only way to survive is it not more evil to refrain eating the already dead body and making your wife a widow and having your child grow up fatherless. And don’t even get me started on drawing lots to figure out who’s for dinner when all the previously dead have been picked clean.
I mostly think companies are amoral to a large extent, but to the extent to which they are moral their responsibilities lie in performing their duties to maximize stockholder return, so failing to act in a way that will do that is immoral. People say things like taking advantage oaf a tax loophole are evil, but if it is legal, then it is moral; the fault lies with the system for having the loophole, not with the company for seeking the best tax position. So mostly I’m kinda like don’t hate the playa, hate the game.
I’m using power to run the computer on which I’m reading and responding to this thread. Does that make me an accessory to evil?
Conspiracy theorist, much?
No, I just wanted to have a civil conversation to understand in this case, the notion behind “evil corporations”, which is a frequently thrown around in threads and in editorial media.
I blame Satan.
Could you give us some context by linking to some of these threads?
Your computer is using power.
If you drive, your car is using gasoline.
Most things you use, wear or eat have chemicals involved.
Are you supporting evil?
I think a lot of that chatter is by and for people who do not have very much education or real world experience in business. It is my belief that what people really hate is corporatism; and corporations are the embodiment of that way of life which is pervasive in our culture. What corporatism is is looking out for your own interests with no regard to things such as loyalty to employees, commitment to a community or a country, interest in the well being of workers or society as long as everything you do is legal as defined by the letter of the law or what is defensible by the lawyers. It is perfectly legal for a corporation to do such things as blatantly lie to employees for example. For actors in the corporate system, embracing these values is a requirement for long term survival, and not just an option. We, as a society, allow corporatism to flourish yet oftentimes bristle at its harsh reality.
Are there any major oil companies that deny climate change anymore? I just looked at the web sites of four such companies. All have statements of concern about CO2 emissions and climate change.
Chevron: At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2 )—in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Exxon Mobil: While there remains uncertainty in projecting future changes in climate and associated impacts, ExxonMobil believes that changes to the earth’s climate, including those that may result from anthropogenic causes, pose a risk; and, in order to address this risk society should consider economically efficient policies that include both mitigation and adaptation, and that balance reduction in climate risk with other global developmental needs, including the need to sustain and provide for growing populations.
Shell: Population growth and economic development are driving up energy demand. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies. Shell is taking action across four areas to help secure a sustainable energy future : natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency.
BP: BP believes that climate change is an important long-term issue that justifies global action. The science: According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and is in large part due to an increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities. The IPCC believes that warming of the climate will probably lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent and unpredictable. Its latest report makes clear that limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of GHG emissions.