Investing in Global Renewable Energy: Economic Benefits and Ethical Dilemmas, Thesis of Digital Marketing

Download Investing in Global Renewable Energy: Economic Benefits and Ethical Dilemmas and more Thesis Digital Marketing in PDF only on Docsity! 1 Why Investing in Global Renewable Energy Makes Economic Sense GEN 499 General Education Capstone Introduction: The topic of climate change is a complicated one. The majority of scientists and researchers agree that we have a global problem that could have existential implications. However, not all world leaders agree that humans have a significant impact on the climate, how to fix the problem (for those that agree that there is one), or whether it’s even possible for us to reverse climate change. However, there is one thing that just about all leaders are keenly interested in, the world economy as well as their own. Therefore, making an argument for investments in climate change related infrastructure overhaul initiatives requires a different strategy and additional research. To convince all world leaders to act in unison, we must be able to clearly identify the economic benefits of investing in carbon-neutral energy sources such as nuclear, solar, and/or wind, innovate carbon extraction solutions, and prove that the failure to do so on a global scale will have economic consequences that far outweigh the initial infrastructure investments carbon-neutral energy will require.However, it's also important to identify that specific ethical dilemmas such as what to do with existing oil companies and the lower barrier to entry coal burning and fossil fuels provides to developing countries versus investing in renewable energy. Additionally, there’s are growing movements against the individual liberties of global citizens such as those who consume animal products. Ultimately, a complicated problem might have a simple solution, which is to focus on the economy. Thesis Statement: To convince all world leaders to act in unison, we must be able to clearly identify the economic benefits of investing in carbon-neutral energy sources such as nuclear, solar, and/or wind and prove that the failure to do so on a global scale will have economic 2 It is, however, apparent that the author did their due diligence from a research standpoint based on the quantity and quality of sources they referenced. Annotation 3: Reference: De la Cruz Arboleda, C.A., (Jul. 2018). Climate change in the era of post-truth. Ecology Law Quarterly. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.proxy- library.ashford.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=bccb1d51-4b61-4bcc- b2cf-0d9f50bf297a%40sessionmgr4008 Annotation: This source largely uses climate scientist Michael Mann’s conclusions regarding climate change as a basis for the article. The article references several conclusions Mann came to regarding the science behind climate change and what’s causing it. It also references our current political climate and why there is a tangible culture of denial amongst a certain group of politicians. Even more concerning (as the article points out) are the handful of scientists that willingly argue against the legitimacy of climate change when they know they are being deceptive. The author provides a theory as to why that is. Most notably though, is how this article touches on one of the ethical dilemmas I referenced. The article concludes that Mann’s emphasis on high-level strategies misses an opportunity that can be equally impactful, which is the choice to switch to a plant-based diet. This article is valuable to my topic, because it provides a counter argument I can either discredit with additional data or use to influence my perspective on the best course of action. Ultimately, it helps provide a balanced perspective, which reduces the potential of inherent bias. 5 Annotation 4: Reference: Le Menestrel, M., Van den Hove, S., and de Bettignies, H.C., (Dec. 2002). Processes and consequences in business ethical dilemmas: The oil industry and climate change. Journal of Business Ethics Vol. 41, Iss. 3. Retrieved from https://www-proquest- com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/docview/198022395/fulltextPDF/ A48B66786B13465FPQ/1?accountid=32521 Annotation: There are no shortage of major ethical dilemmas related to climate change. This article takes a deeper dive into the ethical dilemma current oil companies have when attempting to balance their profits with their environmental responsibilities. The authors break down the ethical dilemma into two strategies. The first is called the consequential strategy and it involves a company exhibiting behaviors that are in the best interest of their profits and shareholders. The second is called the procedural strategy and it involves businesses sacrificing economic gains for ethical reasons. The article references similar ethical dilemmas that industries such as the tobacco industry faced and how they dealt with it. This article is largely qualitative in nature and does not cite a lot of statistics. Instead, it provides insight into how to deal with these dilemmas and help steer these corporations into a more ethical direction by establishing checks-and-balances. This specific article will help fine tune a robust strategy, which includes the cooperation of existing energy companies. Annotation 5: Reference: 6 Nordgren, A., (2012). Ethical issues in mitigation of climate change: The option of reduced meat production and consumption. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Vol. 25, Iss. 4. Retrieved from https://www-proquest- com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/docview/1032785903/fulltextPDF/ Annotation: Another major ethical dilemma is the topic of meat production and consumption. The author of this article first provides a high-level overview of the effects of climate change. He then references the contributing factors including meat production. The author then goes on to argue the reasons why society as a whole has a moral obligation to mitigate climate change. The article then outlines why developed countries should bear the brunt of this responsibility. Additionally, it outlines another dilemma that is actually at the heart of the meat production issue. Most people would agree that we need to collectively change our habits because the collective cost is outweighed by the collective gain (a better world). However, the individual cost (in this case a change in diet) is not outweighed by the negligible individual gain. For example, I won’t see a single difference in my immediate environment if I stop eating (or reduce eating) meat. This dilemma actually helps solidify my argument that a high-level strategy is the best course of action and that any granular measures would due to a trickledown effect. This specific article references several studies that were conducted on the topic and it is evident that the author did a great deal of research prior to reaching his conclusions. This is evident in the sources provided as well as the data that was referenced throughout the article. 7