Ingeniero

Environmental Ethics.
As the president of the department of environmental care stated, “In the last couple of years we have done extreme things to save nature, things that even though they didn’t make sense, from an economical point of view, we’ve applied to our company working methods… we have done enough ” many companies have applied the minimum amount of environmental care taking just toavoid critics from movements such as Greenpeace, Guiaverde, etc. Those small amounts of work are called “environmental curtains”. Many companies state that what they are doing to save the world, to save the nature, to save humans is enough, that doing more is not rentable, what they do not realize is that a live does not have a price, and that 7.024 billion of lives, are simply, priceless. Althoughmany people state that this is the era of “changes” that we will save the world with the current effort, I strongly believe that there is big discordance between what we think and what really happens, what we are doing is not even close to enough to make a difference. What we need to save the world is awareness, to create habits and to be cautious.
Environmental care has become a mainstreamtopic, and a criteria to judge multinational companies, this “criteria” or green movement started in the 70’s, it started as a social idea, to “protect the environment”, or “save the trees”, and many people even considered just a fashion, but it started to be serious with the foundation of Greenpeace in 1971, which would turn to be the most influent environmentalist company worldwide. Companies allaround the world, mostly international companies, have to protect their image, and the image that its name represents as well, since environmental care has become a mainstream topic, and the most controversial topic in 2012, companies have done many ….. to try to look good in this aspect, companies such as Kraft, they supported recycling by partnering with Enval, a company fully dedicated torecycle, following the example of companies such as Nestle, the approximate cost of this operation was around 6 million US dollars. Kraft companies have applied the “less plastic consume” campaign which consist in the use of ceramic plates during the eating periods instead of plastic plates to reduce the plastic disposal, and contamination produced by the factory. They left a bad image when theycontaminated 124 homes in Attica, Indiana by polluting the water and air in their homes, the total amount of damages were estimated around 10,5 million dollars, Kraft refused to pay, and after several years, they lost in the tribunal against the “Pollution Lawyers”, losing the total amount of 8,1 million dollars, the effects of that contamination can be still seen nowadays. Companies such as Kraft statethat those kind of effects are part of an unavoidable “collateral damage”. Even though they have tried to apply the method of reducing plastic waste created by the employees, they don’t have enough workers as to fully apply this idea, and they refuse to hire more workers, “we are doing what we can, but we cannot place environmental issues over the companie’s economy”. They state that what they aredoing is “enough”, but the amount of money they spend in activities for the worker to reconsider environmental care is minimum, actives such as motivational speeches for the employees and their families, incentives to impulse the worket to take care of environment, activities involving recycle; the correct use of limited recourses, and purity of the environment. Activities such as the ones justmentioned, are “not rentable” for them because such would include the factories and as a result the production stoppage, causing the “lost ” of millions of dollars. What they don’t realize is that, the the cost of those activities will be much lower than the cost of trying to get the resources back, or at least, trying to make them last longer.
 There are no global laws protecting the environment...