Oh yeah, no disagreement on *that* score.
HOWEVER, GP continues to force their issues on the larger, western companies when what they need to do is attempt to influence the legal system in the countries that are NOT as restrictive as we (US,ECC) are.Heck yeah, they're focussing way wrong nowadays, no disagreement there. 'T'was, as I said, just the "tone" of your post (that made it look as if you were saying what it now seems you didn't mean to say) I meant.
Big co's in the US now do NOT do the bare minimum that the law requires (by and large...there are exceptions). Most go well beyond what is required. Reason, unlimited liability. It has been shown (asbestos, arsenic, etc...) that what you did 50 years ago you can be forced to pay for now...even if the best information available at the time showed no ill effect from your actions.And marketing; being "green" or "environmentally aware" helps sell stuff, at least in some industries... But then, Big Corps are doing what they're "forced to do by the market", and again not "out of the goodness of their heart". They are, as usual, just looking out for the Holy Bottom Line; if anyone is really "doing" anything, it would have to be the newly "aware" buying public. (And, in your example, the weird USAmerican legal system... :-)
If it truly is the betterment of the global environment that GP is interested in...it will take information like was given above as affirmation that some improvements are being made...and focus their attention to places where they can really do some good as opposed to places where they can get the most press.But there, we start to touch upon these "anti-globalization" movements and shit... The next step, in order for the "Third World" to build up clean -- or at least somewhat less dirty -- industry, is that they have a market for the products of that industry. How the fuck are they supposed to be able to afford upgrading to less polluting factories if we in the rich countries erect mile-high tariff walls to keep anything they could produce out of our markets -- and thus also hinder the growth of a middle class in the poor countries that could possibly become a domestic market?
So the torch of Protecting The Earth has passed, in some senses, from Greenpeace to those (partly misdirectedly-acting, but basically soundly-motivated) protestors mislabeled "anti-globalists", who AFAICS are just (or at least *should* be, if they're sensible) saying "Sure, 'globalization' OK, but NOT _J_U_S_T_ on the terms of Big Western Corps!". That's not really "ANTI"-globalization, is it? Just "DIFFERENT" globalization...
(Then again, many of those young Western firebrands protesting against the WTO and the World Bank and whatnot, are probably *also* Greenpeace members, so perhaps the GP's aren't *entirely* out of touch with this.)
