Mother Earth Says, “Stop Being a Bad Influence!”

Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, had me convinced the decimation of the grounds of Ontario Place was no big deal. The iconic waterfront community playground, known for its award-winning landscape architecture and modernist design, needed an overhaul, and Doug Ford, holder of the highest office in the province, stepped in with a plan. I bought into words like “spectacular” and “revitalization” until a friend made me realize Doug Ford was up to no good. Now, the entire West Island of Ontario Place has been completely clear-cut of old growth trees; mink, beaver, foxes and rabbits have all lost their habitats. The suspiciousness in the environmental devastation was so obvious, the New York Times recently reported on it, saying, “Mr. Ford’s government took several unusual steps that reduced oversight. The entire island’s development was exempt from key environmental checks and was classified as a real estate transaction”. Then I remembered the time Doug Ford tried to release land for development from the environmentally protected areas of Ontario’s Green Belt. These lands were supposed to be permanently protected to preserve valuable agricultural land and the biodiversity of forests and wetlands, and Doug Ford had tried to destroy them in the name of development, too. I needed to face facts: the premier of my province was advocating for quick, thoughtless progress at the expense of the environment instead of careful, creative progress in support of it.

Doug Ford and his promises of revitalization did not numb my environmentalism into submission, but they almost did – which demonstrates the power of public office and the bad influence it can have on us all. In the case of politicians, we can open our eyes and oppose their ideas and use our vote to create change. But when it comes to companies operating in a free market system, we might be overwhelmed by their size and omnipresence and feel limited in how we can respond to bad acts against the environment. Some companies are so huge they might seem unstoppable – but they’re not. First, we need to recognize bad influence when it’s happening. Then, we can respond to create change. Right now, Starbucks, Loblaw, and Shell are three influential companies that are negatively impacting the way we think and act toward the environment – but it’s not too late to turn the tables.

Starbucks is a company that publicly portrays itself as environmentally progressive, and the green emblem on its disposable coffee cups acts as a subconscious reminder. However, in August 2024, incoming CEO Brian Niccol was given access to the Starbucks private company jet to commute back and forth from his home in Newport Beach, California to the company headquarters in Seattle, Washington. While this offer may have been an initial attempt to seal the deal with Niccol and help with his transition, it is nonetheless a ridiculous commute. The trip is 992 miles each way and would result in the emission of two metric tonnes of carbon dioxide for every hour of flight. While the decision to emit this amount of CO2 for a single person is recklessly irresponsible, Starbucks loyalists may privately wonder if the use of a private jet is really such a big deal. After all, Starbucks purports to be an environmentally conscious company, whose own company website says, “Together, we can build a better future for the planet”. Knowing Starbucks offered its company jet to convenience their new CEO in his commute to and from work, consumers who regularly do their small part to reduce emissions may ask themselves if riding their bike to work or taking the bus is really all that necessary. According to environmental researcher Robert Gifford, in a paper titled, “The Dragons of Inaction: Psychological Barriers That Limit Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation”, social comparison and social norms can inspire both pro-environmental and anti-environmental action. In this case, Starbucks may very well be the catalyst for change…and not in a good way.

Bad influence can be observed in the imitative behavior of social comparison, but it can also be seen in behaviours related to perceived inequity. Consider the actions of Loblaw, a company whose presence as a grocery giant in Canada is ubiquitous. In May 2023, the Coquitlam, British Columbia location of Loblaw’s Real Canadian Superstore was fined for deliberate non-compliance with recycling regulations. According to the BC Ministry of Environment, the company was initially told it would need to collect empty beverage containers in July 2020 and refused to comply. Granted, its refusal came during the pandemic, when logistics may have made compliance more complicated, but Loblaw’s refusal to comply went on for years. According to the Ministry of Environment, its inaction was “repeated, continuous, deliberate, and economic benefits [were] derived from the infractions”. The fine for Loblaw’s inaction almost three years later? $8000. For a company at the time worth over 53 billion CAD, the amount barely registers. In April 2023, Loblaw indicated it had begun to comply, but the company had been enjoying economic benefits from its environmental inaction for years. Consider this: when large companies such as Loblaw refuse to recycle, they reject conservation on a large scale, and individuals who recycle regularly may see this as unfair. Gifford explains perceived inequity in the following way: “some individuals…ask why they should contribute responsible behaviour to the climate change cause when…others will not”. Recycling is a cooperative effort, and when inequity exists, cooperation declines. Individual consumers might wonder why they should inconvenience themselves to recycle a few lousy bottles when huge companies like Loblaw refuse to engage in the practice on such a large scale.

Shell represents a company whose climate record constitutes maximum bad influence. In a Greenpeace Canada report from 2024, details emerged of an agreement between the energy company Shell and the Government of Alberta to cheat both Canadian taxpayers and the environment. In this agreement, the Government of Alberta invited Shell, who also capitalizes on its own carbon capture operation, to claim and sell double the emission credits for the amount of carbon the company actually trapped and stored. In this way, taxpayers unknowingly funded a deal to cheat the environment of real carbon capture. Shell kept all the profits from this deal with the Government of Alberta, which not only cheated the environment but robbed taxpayers as well. Meanwhile, Shell continues to lobby against regulations to cap greenhouse gas emissions, and despite its own so-called carbon capture operation, its emissions have increased by 16 million tonnes since Shell started operating in Alberta in 2016.

In the case of Shell, a more sinister and insidious brand of bad influence is at play. Climate researcher David W. Kidner, in his 2021 article titled, “Anthropocene subjectivity and environmental degradation” suggests we have become part of a system of bad influence, where companies like Shell are focused on industrialist concerns with little or no real concern for the environment. He says individuals are caught up in this system, and our reaction “is not simply acute grief for a nature that is being lost, but a much more complex compound of apathy and desperation”. In short, we do not act to protect the environment – we become part of the machine instead. We convince ourselves buying carbon capture credits will save us, and when buying those credits devolves into robbing the environment of the carbon capture those credits promise, only the most dedicated among us draws any attention to it. We think money and technology will save us, when in fact, money is cheap, and technology does not always work. Look at the recently suggested solution to shoot sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to cool the earth. Are we trying to convince ourselves this short term attempt at a solution will not harm ourselves and our earth irreparably?

Deep down, we know throwing money at climate change is the easy way, and the easy way is almost never the right way. It’s hard to cut back and not do damage to the environment in the first place. So, we become part of the machine, as Kidner calls us “the destructive agents of industrialism”. But we are subordinate agents, and we know it, which leads to those feelings of apathy and despair. We do nothing because we feel we can do nothing.

When Doug Ford destroyed the lands of Ontario Place and tried to develop the Green Belt, he demonstrated he does not put environmental concerns at the forefront of his plans for progress, and this makes him backward and lacking in creativity and a bad influence. We see his behaviour, and we might be tricked into thinking his old brand of quick and dirty policies are what we need for economic progress. It’s not – and it’s not for companies either.

When Starbucks, Loblaw, and Shell fail to uphold their responsibility to the environment, they are not only being backward and uncreative – they are beckoning us to do the same. When we see these companies lie, cheat, and steal to avoid their responsibility to the environment, we might respond in a like manner for a few reasons. We might see their actions as normal and follow suit, or we might perceive the situation as unfair and wonder why we need to behave any differently, or we might say to ourselves, “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” and simply give up.

But I refuse to believe we must act so mindlessly. What if, instead, we tried to change the bad influence behaviours of these companies? When Doug Ford tried to develop the Green Belt, the people of Ontario held rallies and stood up for the environment, and he changed his mind and apologized. I think we can stand up for the environment as consumers as well. We could start by refusing to buy from these bad influence companies. In this way, we would turn the tables and become a good influence in the equation. Companies might see the harm to their bottom line and change their ways. We could advocate for harsh monetary penalties and legal action against companies for activities that harm the earth. These penalties would make it more profitable to be environmentally responsible than not, which would encourage these companies to find creative solutions that support the environment. We could also vote for governments who have the courage to support injurious regulations that sanction companies – and we could censure governments who are complicit in environmental crimes. Mother Earth needs us to stand up. Only then will large companies respect the environment, and only then will all people recognize their responsibility to do the same.