9 ms·

> Why single out large corporations? If anything, large multinationals are about the best run businesses on the planet. Having been in consulting for a long ti

> Why single out large corporations? If anything, large multinationals are about the best run businesses on the planet. Having been in consulting for a long time, for many of these companies, let’s just say reasonable people can disagree with this.

eru 1y ago
I'm not saying that large multinationals are better than you think. I'm saying that the other actors (small companies, governments, private individuals, NGOs, etc) ain't any better, and many of them are worse. Have a look at what used to be the Aral Sea for an example.
- suddenlybananas 1y ago
  >Have a look at what used to be the Aral Sea for an example. Yes large multinationals have never adversely affected the environment.
  - badpun 1y ago
    The Soviet Union holds pretty much all the trophies in large-scale environment devastation.
    - suddenlybananas 1y ago
      The amount of environmental devastation in the third world by multinationals dwarfs anything the USSR did.
      - decimalenough 1y ago
        Citation needed. Multinationals aren't angels, but I'm hard pressed to think of anything they've done that's on the scale of the Chernobyl disaster, the Aral Sea drying up, the Kyshtym disaster, Lake Karachay, etc. Even things like clear-cutting the Amazon are usually done by locals (although bigcos are more than happy to buy the resulting soybeans, beef, etc).
        suddenlybananas 1y ago
        I think you live on another planet. Union Carbide alone killed thousands and thousands of people. Like there are so many industrial disasters caused by corporations that it's patently absurd to act like the USSR did more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disasters#Industrial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disaster... Like on this list, the vast majority are done by corporations.
        eru 1y ago
        The Soviet Union was only one country. You'd probably want to normalise the industrial disaster score per capita (or even per dollar-equivalent of GDP). Would be an interesting research project. Look for cost of QALY-lost per capita or so from environmental damage.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        100,000 years from now no one will remember Bhopal as sad as that thought is. But Chernobyl will still be spicy.
        suddenlybananas 1y ago
        Chernobyl will be completely safe in 100 000 years. It's more on scale of centuries to a few millenia. Long time, but not 100 000.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        I checked before I posted. The remaining Pu-239 will have only transitioned through 4 halflives leaving ~5% still actively radiating. Pu-242 will have only transitioned through 1/3 of a halflife. This is enough that excavation or otherwise disturbing the earth would be unwise.
        Retric 1y ago
        Overall the area will be ~1/1,000th as radioactive in 100k years, and it’s not that dangerous today. The flip side of that 24,000 year half life is Pu-239 isn’t that hot. 5% of what little Pu-239 is there isn’t that spicy compared to many places people live without significant worry about the natural radiation dose. There’s just not enough Pu-242 to be a significant concern on its own outside of the reactor building which is unlikely to be left alone.
- southernplaces7 1y ago
  Agreed and good that someone else mentions this specific point. It's common to rail at large multinational corporations and their acts of ineptitude, malfeasance and outright destructiveness in some cases but many of these complaints leave implicit that if only some other kind of large organization had managed the same X or Y, things would have turned out better. Why? There's no innate quality of any government or NGO that makes either somehow less likely to ruin something or cause harm than is the case for a corporation. For many governments, given their local monopoly on control and greater lack of clear financial accountability to a specific bottom line, malfeasance is if anything more likely. The Aral sea is one glaring example of this, but there are many, many others.
  - eightysixfour 1y ago
    > For many governments, given their local monopoly on control and greater lack of clear financial accountability to a specific bottom line, malfeasance is if anything more likely. I am going to guess you and I have some underlying philosophical differences. I fully believe in the power of competitive markets, however, the primary market structured around profit is not always (or even often) the best for global scale issues. Given that we cannot appropriately price externalities nor enforce them, we often want organizations which are motivated socially or by values. The trade off in efficiency is irrelevant. I don’t want a company seeking maximum efficiency in some areas, I want things that are driving for stability or durability. Or social good. Or other measurements. You actually said it best: > If anything, large multinationals are about the best run businesses on the planet. Yes, but they’re businesses, not everything is a business problem.
    - eru 1y ago
      > I am going to guess you and I have some underlying philosophical differences. I fully believe in the power of competitive markets, however, the primary market structured around profit is not always (or even often) the best for global scale issues. Profit might not be a particularly good incentive, but the others are worse. > Given that we cannot appropriately price externalities nor enforce them, we often want organizations which are motivated socially or by values. Just waving your wand doesn't automagically make any organisation (government or otherwise) motivativated socially or by values. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice > The trade off in efficiency is irrelevant. I don’t want a company seeking maximum efficiency in some areas, I want things that are driving for stability or durability. Or social good. Or other measurements. Sure, but just stating that desire that doesn't make it happen.

eru 1y ago

I'm not saying that large multinationals are better than you think. I'm saying that the other actors (small companies, governments, private individuals, NGOs, etc) ain't any better, and many of them are worse. Have a look at what used to be the Aral Sea for an example.

suddenlybananas 1y ago
>Have a look at what used to be the Aral Sea for an example. Yes large multinationals have never adversely affected the environment.
- badpun 1y ago
  The Soviet Union holds pretty much all the trophies in large-scale environment devastation.
  - suddenlybananas 1y ago
    The amount of environmental devastation in the third world by multinationals dwarfs anything the USSR did.
    - decimalenough 1y ago
      Citation needed. Multinationals aren't angels, but I'm hard pressed to think of anything they've done that's on the scale of the Chernobyl disaster, the Aral Sea drying up, the Kyshtym disaster, Lake Karachay, etc. Even things like clear-cutting the Amazon are usually done by locals (although bigcos are more than happy to buy the resulting soybeans, beef, etc).
      - suddenlybananas 1y ago
        I think you live on another planet. Union Carbide alone killed thousands and thousands of people. Like there are so many industrial disasters caused by corporations that it's patently absurd to act like the USSR did more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disasters#Industrial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_disaster... Like on this list, the vast majority are done by corporations.
        eru 1y ago
        The Soviet Union was only one country. You'd probably want to normalise the industrial disaster score per capita (or even per dollar-equivalent of GDP). Would be an interesting research project. Look for cost of QALY-lost per capita or so from environmental damage.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        100,000 years from now no one will remember Bhopal as sad as that thought is. But Chernobyl will still be spicy.
        suddenlybananas 1y ago
        Chernobyl will be completely safe in 100 000 years. It's more on scale of centuries to a few millenia. Long time, but not 100 000.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        I checked before I posted. The remaining Pu-239 will have only transitioned through 4 halflives leaving ~5% still actively radiating. Pu-242 will have only transitioned through 1/3 of a halflife. This is enough that excavation or otherwise disturbing the earth would be unwise.
        Retric 1y ago
        Overall the area will be ~1/1,000th as radioactive in 100k years, and it’s not that dangerous today. The flip side of that 24,000 year half life is Pu-239 isn’t that hot. 5% of what little Pu-239 is there isn’t that spicy compared to many places people live without significant worry about the natural radiation dose. There’s just not enough Pu-242 to be a significant concern on its own outside of the reactor building which is unlikely to be left alone.
southernplaces7 1y ago
Agreed and good that someone else mentions this specific point. It's common to rail at large multinational corporations and their acts of ineptitude, malfeasance and outright destructiveness in some cases but many of these complaints leave implicit that if only some other kind of large organization had managed the same X or Y, things would have turned out better. Why? There's no innate quality of any government or NGO that makes either somehow less likely to ruin something or cause harm than is the case for a corporation. For many governments, given their local monopoly on control and greater lack of clear financial accountability to a specific bottom line, malfeasance is if anything more likely. The Aral sea is one glaring example of this, but there are many, many others.
- eightysixfour 1y ago
  > For many governments, given their local monopoly on control and greater lack of clear financial accountability to a specific bottom line, malfeasance is if anything more likely. I am going to guess you and I have some underlying philosophical differences. I fully believe in the power of competitive markets, however, the primary market structured around profit is not always (or even often) the best for global scale issues. Given that we cannot appropriately price externalities nor enforce them, we often want organizations which are motivated socially or by values. The trade off in efficiency is irrelevant. I don’t want a company seeking maximum efficiency in some areas, I want things that are driving for stability or durability. Or social good. Or other measurements. You actually said it best: > If anything, large multinationals are about the best run businesses on the planet. Yes, but they’re businesses, not everything is a business problem.
  - eru 1y ago
    > I am going to guess you and I have some underlying philosophical differences. I fully believe in the power of competitive markets, however, the primary market structured around profit is not always (or even often) the best for global scale issues. Profit might not be a particularly good incentive, but the others are worse. > Given that we cannot appropriately price externalities nor enforce them, we often want organizations which are motivated socially or by values. Just waving your wand doesn't automagically make any organisation (government or otherwise) motivativated socially or by values. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice > The trade off in efficiency is irrelevant. I don’t want a company seeking maximum efficiency in some areas, I want things that are driving for stability or durability. Or social good. Or other measurements. Sure, but just stating that desire that doesn't make it happen.