Question

Issues of the environment and global warming have taken a backseat to the economy recently. Former VP Al Gore raised awareness about global warming and the roles of business, government, and industry. President Obama's administration seems will to consider such issuses. Who knows how it will rank with war, health care, and the economy. Certainly, the business sector faces pressure from both internal and external stakeholders when the banner of environmental protection is hoisted.

Beyond the legislative mandates (EPA, etc), how far should corporate responsibility for the environment extend? For example, do you believe that trees, lakes, oceans, and animals should have rights or are "non-humans" not worthy of protection?

Answer 1

Absolutely, just because they are things does not mean that they do not need to be protected. Especially if they are national landmarks or if an animal is at risk of becoming extinct. They need protection, animals cannot always defend for themselves. Trees need protection so they are not cut down while lakes and oceans need protection because of liter. Without these certain laws and regulations, littering and killing animals would be even more at risk.

I think all the corporate should take full responsibility for what they did. They should have policy and rules to protect the natural environment. It is a basic duty that all the businesses have to obey. They should not put their own benefits in front of the whole society. It is not about whose have the rights in this situation since all the non human cannot raise their voice for the protection. But that is out duty to protect everything that belong to the nature and it will also benefit our life in the future.