will be responsible for giving critical feedback of at least 100 words to two other groups
In 1990 Ford created the 9-passenger vehicle we know as the Excursion. The Excursion was classified as a medium-duty truck weighing in at 8,500 pounds and almost 19 feet long costing about $40,000 to $50,000 dollars. The Excursion was 43 percent below its pollution maximum with a 44-gallon tank for its class. The company believed it was following the philosophy set by William Clay Ford, Jr. when he vowed to make Ford, “the world’s most environmentally friendly automaker” (Barry and Shaw, 2013 pg. 360). Except it did just the opposite by emitting 130 tons of carbon dioxide for every 120,000 miles the Excursion was driven. After the backlash, Ford received, it vowed to improve its SUVs fuel economy by 2005. Ford did not reach its goal and eventually phased out the excursion replacing it with the Ford Escape, that is a gas-electric hybrid SUV. In 2008 General Motors was recorded saying that hybrids make no economic sense and that global warming is not real making critics still say that their SUVs are still not economically smart.
- The Excursion was legally allowed to emit the 130 tons of carbon dioxide because of its classification as a medium-duty truck.
- Ford vowed to make their company an economically friendly company by 2005.
- The Excursion emitted 130 tons of carbon dioxide every 120,000 miles.
- Ford phased out the Excursion in early 2000’s because it was not meeting the company’s promise of becoming economically better and the public was criticizing the company.
- To decrease the pollution Ford creates they could create hybrids that are economically better.
- To create a hydrogen engine.
- If Ford is not able to keep their pollution being emitted down, the government could enforce a pricing mechanism on their cars for how much pollution they create, give them permits on how much a car can produce a year or however many miles it will drive, and give them an incentive by helping them with economically better ideas or devices for their vehicles.
Ford Company has the responsibility of helping the environment to prosper as a business proposition. ‘They believe that with the Excursion, the Ford Company is a long way from producing an environmentally friendly product.” (Shaw & Barry, p. 360). They were legally allowed to emit 130 tons of carbon dioxide every 120,000 miles.
Ford Motor Company unsuccessful to keep its promise to advance fuel economy by 25 percent by 2005, which made the Excursion to time out. “Recently, the company introduced the Escape, an SUV that is a gas- electric hybrid, and Ford’s research-and Ford’s research-and-development people are and-development people are working hard on developing a hydrogen engine. Still, Ford is filling the void left by the Excursion with an extra-long version of its Expedition. Not only do gas guzzlers continue to roll out of Detroit.” (Shaw & Barry, p. 360).
The deals of Ford company are to decrease the Pollution by creating hybrids cars that are economically better. Contamination control has a price, and trade-offs must be made. Being “classified as a medium-duty truck, the Excursion can emit more smog-causing gases than do passenger cars. However, Ford says that the Excursion, with its 44-gallon gas tank, gets 10 to 15 miles per gallon and that its emission of pollutants is 43 percent below the maximum for its class.” (Shaw & Barry, p. 360)
Rising affluence is one of the root environmental problems. As the population grows, people that start to make more money consume and purchase more tangible goods, discard them quickly, and purchase more goods. This ends up putting more pressure on the environment. Americans today own more than 241 million motor vehicles. That’s about a quarter of the worlds’ total. To make this matter worse most of these vehicles are pick-ups and SUV’s much like the Fords Excursion (Barry and Shaw, 2013 pg. 341).
As the world, has tried to regulate and set standards to protect the environment there is no one-size-fits all approach. One country can benefit more than another due to the pollution in that area. The pollution in more populated areas like Los Angeles effects the lives of the natives living in the rain forest, which makes us all responsible.
As Ford Motors implements their goal to become more green, the Environmental Protection Act’s best approach is to use a combination of regulations, incentives, pricing mechanisms, and pollution permits to successfully motivate the motor vehicle industries. Other companies that have been committed to going green have realized that their environment responsibility is starting to save them money and improve efficiency.
Palm Oil and its Problems
This paper will look at the ethical issues surrounding palm oil production. The members of this group will analyze the issues involving the production of palm oil, present solutions to solve this issue, and draw a conclusion about the ethical issues involved in this case study.
The use of palm oil in products may be overlooked by some but it has a significant role in many of the products that we use. Ranging from use in processed foods to consumer products like lipstick, shampoo, shaving cream, and biofuel, palm oil has hundreds of different uses. Palm oil comes from the oil palm tree (Elaeisguineensis), which originated in West Africa but by the 1800s was discovered to grow well in Malaysia and other countries in Southwest Asia (Shaw & Barry, 2014, p. 364).
As demand for palm oil has increased, so too has the demand for the number of plantations to produce it. Environmental groups are concerned with this demand and have made clear the environmental damage that has resulted. Large areas of peat land and forests have been eliminated with the cultivation of palm oil and in areas animal habitats are threatened.
Awareness of the problem has led to the establishment of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) in 2004. The RSPO is a consortium of growers, processors, food companies, and nongovernmental organizations (Shaw & Barry, 2014, p. 364). The RSPO aims to prod the palm oil industry into producing a “sustainable” product but has been met with little attention from the industry.
As frustration grows among environmentalists, some have resorted to direct action to bring awareness. Greenpeace, for example, has targeted Unilever for the use of palm oil in their brands. Other companies like Nestle have also been on the receiving end of Greenpeace’s protest. To answer back some of these companies are now starting to use palm oil from sustainable sources. Listed below is the O/E/I model that will be analyzed in the following section:
- Companies who use palm oil in their products have the responsibility to provide sustainable palm oil.
- To provide palm oil to the world.
- Maintain a moral responsibility as a company by not misusing palm oil.
- Desire for palm oil has led to extreme deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia.
- Environmentalist groups have resorted to direct action to protest companies who use unsustainable palm oil.
- To use palm oil responsibly and limit deforestation.
- Awareness to companies to the proper use of palm oil.
Palm oil is an incredibly versatile product that cannot easily be substituted so using it is almost unavoidable. Companies who use palm oil in their products have the moral obligation to use the product without destroying the environment from which it is found. In the recently past decades, “the area under cultivation for palm oil has mushroomed fifteen-fold, eliminating peat land and forests in wide swathes of Malaysia and Indonesia” (Shaw & Barry, 2014, p. 364). By tearing apart portions of important forest area of Malaysia and Indonesia, the obligation of sustainability was not being upheld.
With environmentalist organizations bringing awareness to the companies that aid in the deforestation in this region of the world, it has put major pressure on them to address the issue. While it has made a number of companies pull unsustainable palm oils from their products, there needs to be a greater focus on supporting sustainability. Produced without undue harm to its community, many companies have just avoided the problem. The reasoning is that there is “…no such thing as sustainable palm oil: it doesn’t exist” (Shaw & Barry, 2014, p. 365). Some companies in turn only pulled “unsustainable” oils to appease employees and maintain a positive public image.
Regardless of the importance and need for palm oil, it shouldn’t lead to massive destruction of important environments. The responsibility lies within the industry to make positive strides to more “sustainable” palm oils. By doing this, the true ideals of providing “sustainable” palm oils while limiting deforestation in Malaysia and Indonesia can be improved upon.
In order for palm oil that is used around the world to be sustainable, big changes need to be made in the countries that the oil is found in. Several environmentalist organizations have been successful in fixing unsustainable practices but they have “focused on a few well-known Western companies while ignoring Asian companies all together” (Shaw & Barry, 2014, p. 365). A better option would be to start focusing on the root of the problem: the manufacturing companies in Malaysia and Indonesia where the main supply of palm oil is produced. There are several other organizations out there that care about sustainability and would be willing to get behind a big venture like this. The World Bank and the United Nations for example, have deforestation high on their agendas and utilizing these big resources could help make some of the changes that need to be made in Malaysia and Indonesia. If these large organizations can pool their resources together along with the environmentalists and other sustainable countries, they could make a big impact on the market of palm oil in Malaysia and Indonesia and, hopefully, put an end to deforestation.