> If companies like big oil (BP et al.) stopped polluting, if companies like Coca-Cola, Nestlé et al. stopped polluting, if big agribusiness and chemical giants

> If companies like big oil (BP et al.) stopped polluting, if companies like Coca-Cola, Nestlé et al. stopped polluting, if big agribusiness and chemical giants stopped polluting, this whole thing would simply be a non-issue. I strongly oppose this is the type of argumentation for the following reasons: (1) It's rhetorical and moralizing. It hides systemic causes. (2) It hides everything actionable behind the word "If". (3) It gives companies moral dimension. They don't have any. Companies follow incentives. first. Companies can sell bad business to other companies, but they never voluntarily wind down business because it's bad. They respond to costs from the regulators or taxes. > The actual consumer's part in this is so minuscule, Every sale from these companies translates directly into end consumption (private individuals or the government). Fhe final goods flow trough companies. Companies and individuals are different sides of the same equation. Nestle responds to competition and demand. People favor cheaper price over less pollution. > fight for political change to stop it. This is the only way. You must tax and regulate negative externalities or consumer demand for cheap products creates companies that pollute.