Last December, world leaders and environmental activists met in Paris for two weeks of posturing and grandstanding on the topic of global climate policy at the United Nations Climate Change Conference. 2nd Vote highlighted the hundreds of corporations that pledged to support the outcome of the conference, ironically, before the conference even commenced.
Not surprisingly, the actual outcome of the meeting in Paris produced few measurable results as the Paris Climate Agreement lacked any meaningful mechanism of enforcement.
However, the lack of substance doesn’t seem to faze the liberal environmental movement, nor its corporate allies. In fact, the United Nations is commemorating this week’s Earth Day observance by hosting the official signing of the Paris Climate Agreement by world leaders.
At the same time, Earth Day Network, the organization at the front of the modern environmental movement, will try to capitalize on the occasion to indoctrinate young people with its agenda.
A recent press release from EDN claimed that “[a]cross the world, millions of schoolchildren and their teachers will take part in education, civic, and outdoor programs that will teach them… how to begin a lifelong practice of civic participation”.
The same release outlines a concerning political motivation as EDN hopes to push these youths and to “become climate voters”.
In addition to the corporations lending their support to the terms of the Paris Climate Agreement, several well-known businesses also help fund EDN’s agenda. Here are five major companies in 2nd Vote’s database that are listed as corporate sponsors of EDN:
Many consumers rightfully recognize the value of responsible environmental stewardship; no one is against clean air, or clean water, and nor would any responsible company advocate for policies that promoted damage to the environment.
However, as The Daily Signal has pointed out, liberal environmental advocacy usually invites corporate cronyism that stifles markets as result:
Companies here are bent on crafting policies with the government and international bodies that would direct taxpayer money and private investment toward their projects. Private investment dollars will follow taxpayer-funded, subsidized projects because those government programs reduce the financial risk. Those are private investment dollars that can’t be spent on other potentially promising ideas. The result is a system that rewards [what] the government [wants] rather than what the market would produce, crippling innovation, competition and growth.