.jpg)
by David Emanuel Elcock | Laidlaw Scholar (2025) at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland for Localise Youth Volunteering at Claremont Avenue, Glasnevin, Dublin, D11 YNR2
Return to the Home page: Climate Justice Volunteering Toolkit | Homepage
When considering climate justice it helps to prepare volunteers to the reality of the profession. There are a multitude of individuals and organisations with their own agenda that try and frequently succeed to counter the efforts of people seeking climate justice. It helps to understand their motives and approaches so that the effectiveness of any volunteering can be maximised, ensuring work amounts to impact.
On the left we list examples related to greed, both companies that have no care about the climate (or society) or using the climate change as an excuse to drive up costs. In a capitalist society we have to understand that the drive for market domination and profit inevitably lend themselves towards these two approaches. Apart from economics there are examples where obstacles stem from the way we govern societies: examples on the right. Archaic systems using as colonial ideas stuck on the global economy or examples of policies that had good intentions but backfired due to a lack of competence hurt not just our well-being but also translates into harm onto the climate.
Thomas Edison who is credited with inventing the light-bulb is known to have said: ‘We will make electricity so cheap that only the rich will burn candles’. From this statement you would expect any company co-founded by Edison (e.g. General Electric) to keep the price of lightbulbs low in order to honour his pledge. But unfortunately this isn’t what happened as General Electric along with other companies met in Geneva on the 23rd of December, 1924, to found the Phoebus Cartel. This cartel is considered to be the first cartel with true global outreach. Part of this outreach was their role as a supervisory body over the incandescent lightbulb market. Whilst this role included many responsibilities, one includes the engineering of lightbulbs of shorter lifespans with evidence indicating profit being the reason. With a shorter lifespan, more lightbulbs can be sold in the same year to consumers.$^{[1]}$
We have to accept that this greed was facilitated by engineers and scientists, the very same individuals we entrust to improve society. This demonstrates a dark reality, the very same institutions we entrust with our taxes and for their knowledge can and have historically been persuaded at some times to work against the interest of the public and society as a whole. This trend also isn’t recent with examples of abuse by pharmaceutical companies in living memory such as Purdue. This pharmaceutical company pushed their oxycodone (pain-killer) into the market by making biased research appear independent, covered up addiction risks and exaggerated benefits with the aim to mislead doctors and regulators.$^{[2]}$ They were successful leading, contributing to the opioid pandemic by making medical patients addicted to the medicine. This pandemic killing near a million people in the US through overdose is still ongoing and has led to the loss of 217 people on average in 2023 in the US alone.$^{[3]}$
Another perspective we forget when considering pharma is the incredible cost associated with synthesising pharmaceutical grade chemistry. The chemicals used during research and production is immense as a high product purity is legally required meaning more solvent is used at the various stages of production. All that work for millions of deaths in the US alone.
So next time you see a ‘junky’ on the street, ask yourself if you are confident this person has themselves to blame or if like with Purdue they are victims of a cartel for profit, one harming society and our climate. Next time you buy a new lamp or any other item in a store, consider not only the labour conditions in which they were made but also the greed-driven and profit implications these have. All of those light bulbs we wasted unnecessarily. The wasted electricity, all of the packaging and shipment of pills killing close to a million people in the US, all of the funds we could have spent on solutions to address climate change, all the waste polluting the climate. And for what? For someone to buy a luxury plane?
Great lessons can be learned from examples where a solution was found. In the case of the corporate greed of technological giants like Apple that solution was found in the EU. The issue were dodge practice of introducing a new adaptor to as many devices as possible and selling these separately to consumers. The inventive was to generate additional revenue through essential accessories. The problem used to be more widespread as different companies often used custom ports for their devices thus requiring adaptors, a headache for consumers.
This generates more electronic waste similar to the industrial standard fragmentation seen previously with adaptors to electronic devices. Prior to the EU’s USB-C universal adoption, incompatible chargers, converters and cables were being produced across the technology industry. This meant more were breaking down and being replaced leading to more waste.$^{[1]}$ A single household could have multiple separate chargers for example, each only able to power one device. If it broke, you had to get a replacement despite the other chargers still working, but in compatible with your device. Scale the additional waste over all of Europe with a population moving towards 500 million people and the issue becomes apparent. A lot of this waste ends up in practice in landfills, polluting the air, soil and groundwater for many generations with the toxic metals and mechanical/physical breakdown. In 2021 it was estimated that the electronic waste from charger related products in Europe corresponded to 11 000 tonne annually. This was estimated to have 9000 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in 2023.$^{[2]}$ The universal adoption of USB-C and further predicted in 2021 to EU consumers 250 millions of euros collectively and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 180 000 tonnes annually.$^{[3,4]}$
For reference, a typical car weights between 1-2 tonnes illustrating the scale of this waste problem. Reductions of these scales translate beyond greenhouse gas emissions but also soil and ground water pollution which now also reduced. And think of all the valuable material that can be re-allocated that previously was sent to a landfill as waste:
| Component (Charger/Cable) | % of total weight |
|---|---|
| EPS | |
| Plastic | 36% |
| Copper and copper alloys | 13% |
| Stainless steel (USB connectors) | 6% |
| Aluminium | 7% |
| Others | 37% |
| Cable | |
| Copper | 30% |
| Plastic | 30% |
| Stainless steel (USB connectors) | 24% |
| Others | 16% |
Interestingly, the issue of ports might be making a partial comeback as some smaller devices are using their own ports. These devices such as smart-rings are too small to host an entire USB-C port. May this teach you to remain vigilant even when you think an issue has been addressed!
Whenever you volunteer for climate justice, be mindful of the institutions around you and recognise that for some of them you are a barrier to profit. As shown in these examples, such institutions have no regard for your ambitions and will be happy to take extreme measures to achieve their goals. Some other institutions however take a different but clever approach, one discussed below.
[1] M. Krajewski, IEEE Xplore, 51, 10, 2014, p. 56-61. [2] B. W. Gac, H. Yakubi & D. E. Apollonio, Evid Policy, 19, 4, 2023, p. 536-553. [3] CDC, Understanding the Opioid Overdose Epidemic, 2025, last accessed: 08/06/2026. [4] Ipsos, Trinomics, Fraunhofer & Economisti Associati, Publications Office of the EU, 2019, p. 1-225. [5] Ipsos, Trinomics, Fraunhofer & Yeny Vasquez, EU Commision Doc Room, 2021, p. 1-145. [6] EU Comission, Pulling the plug on consumer frustration and e-waste: Commission proposes a common charger for electronic devices, 2021, last accessed: 09/06/2026. [7] EU Comission, Commission proposes a common charging solution for electronic devices – Questions and Answers, 2021, last accessed: 09/06/2026.
Many companies consider climate concerns as a burden, having to install filters and hire experts to consider energy utilisation optimisation and other additional costs. Some businesses however have used the concern of the climate directly as a way to profit. Below three examples are discussed, used by companies.
Several journalists have reported on a trend in the sale of smartphones that started in 2020: the removal of the charger by tech giants like Apple. The given justifications were:
These environmental arguments sounds like they come with good intentions, it might appear as if these companies care about climate justice. But take a closer look and think of the previous examples of corporate greed. Are you sure the intentions behind these justifications even make sense?
Let’s address these arguments one that a time:
Electronic Waste Reduction: Ignoring the fact that a previous charger might be incompatible, break or that a consumer doesn’t even have it, this argument breaks down rapidly when considering a charger is necessary over the lifetime of the device. Hence at some point even an old charger must be replaced. The consumer has been ripped off buying an incomplete product in the name of the climate in a way that only profits the company: greenwashing this profit source.
Reduce Shipping Waste: It is true that the package becomes lighter which results in less energy being consumed by the transporting vehicle. Also, it is true that the shipping of smaller boxes uses less material hence less shipping material waste. This is however undone by the purchase of chargers by consumers. These units must now be shipped separately, a separate trip from the local warehouse to the consumers location. A separate packaging required, separate instruction manual and safety sheet mandatory. Logistically and materially this is worse.
Less Raw Materials: This one doesn’t make any sense when we consider the fact that the charger is needed over the lifetime of the device. The additional need for shipping of chargers separately further exacerbates the problem.
Let’s be frank and call this for what it is, a clever attempt to use climate justice as a justification for profits. Instead of seeing climate justice incentives such as waste reduction and recycling materials as a cost, these corporations see it as an opportunity to make an extra buck at the consumers and climate expense. The problem of greenwashing extends beyond tech-giants and must be considered when designing projects and partnering with companies.$^{[1]}$
Have you ever wondered why the lifetimes of phones seems to shorten? From the hardware to the software were are introduced clever sounding arguments that the increasing technological advance means the devices become more sensitive and that software becomes more demanding. This logically translates into shorter lifespans of phones. But what if this is another corporate lie?
Evidence is emerging that tech-giants are using sleazy methods to profit from consumers unnecessarily by planning obsolescence into devices. This is similar to the approach used by the Phoebus Cartel with light-bulbs but on an entirely new scale. Some of these approaches are justified on climate change grounds, environmental arguments debunked in the previous section. The approaches used include:$^{[2]}$
Hardware Barriers: Maintenance of devices e.g. battery replacement that before could be achieved via accessing screws have been replaced with very strong adhesives. This forces heating to replace components which damages other parts of the device. This design is confirmed to be intentional to reduce the benefit from maintenance, forcing a throw-away culture. But hey, the producer is using a green adhesive over screws so that counts towards the climate right?
Software/Firmware Restrictions: Updates that deliberately trigger a battery drain or slow down older devices, penalising consumers that have taken care of their devices for long-term use. No more security updates for you after a year or two. Who could have though the company punishes you for cherishing one of their products? Greed would have, for an old device still in use translates economically into a consumer that doesn’t buy your latest product. There are even examples of tech-giants using restrictive firmware to lock hardware functionalities if they suspect unauthorised or third-party repairs.
There are several indicators to your life that tell you that you are old. You don’t recognise the latest singer, you don’t know the slang spoken in schools and, you realise the bag of chips or package of cookies reduced in content without the producer telling you and without the price dropping. Welcome to becoming old, you just observed shrinkflation.$^{[3]}$
Shrinkflation increases the packaging to content ratio meaning more waste is being produced. If the same amount of content is consumed this also translates into more shipments being required hence more shipping associated harm to the climate. All of these costs go directly to the consumer, no surprise there.
What is the defence by companies? Increasing production costs. Well, what is increasing production costs? In parts regulations. Such as you might ask? Well, these include environmental protection and climate related regulations. Yes, the same climate you volunteer to fight for is harming these poor companies. Some of them have taken the approach to simply offshore these costs silently to their consumers, but unfortunately as they get older they eventually noticed. And as you get older, you at some point will notice it too! I know I did 😢.
In biology, pathogens are constantly in war with out immune system, finding clever ways to circumvent out defences. However, these same pathogens are key to ecosystems. Whilst the analogy is unpleasant, corporations have a few things in common with pathogens when considering the immune system of climate justice volunteering and societies. Corporations will constantly conjure up clever methods to protect their profits from well-intended interests of our society. It is therefore the responsibility of the volunteering organisers to design approaches that anticipate and prepare for these attempts. As seen in these examples, the methods used to oppose climate justice are typically covert and require a watchful and sceptical eye. Approaches to them require critical thinking and might involve long-term incremental investments of time and energy like the standardisation of the USB-C adaptor in Europe. Get ready for a rigorous and challenging but fulfilling process.
[1] UN, Greenwashing – the deceptive tactics behind environmental claims, n.d., last accessed: 09/06/2026. [2] M. Barros, & E. Dimla, Plate Virtual Conference, 4, 2021, p. 1-6. [3] A. Brunetti, S. Fatello, T. Laureti, F. Polidoro, P. Pompei & R. Ricci, UNECE 18th Ottawa Group Meeting, 2024, p. 1-13.
Grocery stores are abundant in all sorts of foods and drinks to the point us city slackers forget to consider the incredible infrastructure that delivers them to us. The grain producers, the farmers, the factories, logistical networks, advertisement and salespeople, on and on it goes. But, is a complex system always robust? Surely it seems so but no. Unfortunately the food industry is surprisingly sensitive to international disruptions to most nations. There is one nation however that has made itself immune to its food security, and it might not be a country you’d consider.
Imagine yourself a leader of Ireland, you wish to be able to feed your people given your memory about that chapter in history: the great potato famine. So you ask your advisors, ‘What categories should you focus on?’ They reply:
For a developed western country like Ireland with a strong farming history and culture, how well do we do? We fail with a poor 3/7: Dairy, Meat, Fish & Seafood. This means that we are dependent in the other four categories to import food in order to feed the Irish population or face a nutritional crises. After the great potato famine you’d expect the Irish people to take food security more seriously, but this hasn’t translated into concrete policies. In fact, most countries have failed to secure all food types, except one: Guyana.$^{[1]}$
Just like Ireland, Guyana is a former British colony that gained independence on the 6th of May in 1966, roughly 44 years after Ireland. Yet despite the cruelty of slavery with many of their ancestors dragged across continents and forced to survive in unfamiliar and inhospitable landscapes along with further horrors left out of history books, this small South American nation with a population under 1 million managed to hold onto a principle: de-risk from other nations. When considering post-colonial syndrome the people of Guyana along with their leadership demonstrate a clear example of how to free a people from outdated mindsets and adopt strategies that suit their need.
A lot of Irish nationals will be unfamiliar with the history of Guyana and it can be laborious to summarise the history of Guyana. To avoid giving a history lesson and risk making mistakes I will let former Guyanese President David Granger explain it by quoting a part an address to the national assembly in 2016:
*‘Guyana became independent after 350 years of Dutch and British imperial rule. The new nation was born under a state of emergency. The acrid odour of civil conflict hung like a pall over the land. The vista of divided villages scarred the landscape. The voices of disunity and enmity echoed in marketplaces and bottom houses.
We had a new name, a new national anthem, a new flag, a new coat-of-arms, new passports, new postage stamps, new coinage, a new Constitution and a new National Assembly. Those new symbols did not make us independent. We were very much still British Guiana on the night of 25th of May 1966.
The Governor-General, the titular representative of the British Queen, was a foreigner. The Chief of Staff of the Guyana Defence Force was a foreigner. The Commissioner of the Guyana Police Force was a foreigner. The Governor of the Bank of Guyana was a foreigner. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Guyana was a foreigner. The Anglican Bishop of Guyana was a foreigner. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Guyana was a foreigner. The major industries – bauxite and sugar and the banking system – were in the hands of foreigners. We became an independent state by appellation but remained a dependent economy in actuality.’*
This makes Guyana’s timeline intense, whilst they got de jure independence in 1966 from the UK, their de facto independence didn’t come much later. Ireland however received de facto independence in 1919 with a de jure independence secured in 1922. Despite fewer resources, harsher conditions and less time the Guyanese managed to secure food security as the only nation in the world. This proves resources cannot always be used as an excuse for failure.
But what does this have to do with climate? Biodiversity. A key to the success of Guyana is how they grow their food. Historically the Guyanese were forced to grow colonial monocultures such as sugar and rice. Ever wondered where the name Demerara comes from? Unfortunately Guyana was unsuccessful to secure the name hence many Demerara sugars are sourced elsewhere today.
Ignoring this theft, monoculture farming lower biodiversity and are more prone to disease (think of the Irish potato famine). This affects the local ecosystem and is aimed to generate profit at the expense of the people and nature. By adding 70 non-traditional crop species Guyana became successful in being the first and only to secure a food secure nation and increase biodiversity.$^{[2]}$ It should be noted that Guyana continues to invest in its agricultural sector today, a lesson we can learn from and should consider adopting here in Europe.
Ideally when academic scholars conduct research their work is examined and interrogated under a peer-review process that is independent of bias. Whether the research is conducted in Africa or America should in principle not matter if this doesn’t affect the content of the work. Unfortunately, this isn’t how it works.
Academic publications have a lot of flaws: (c.f. Conducting Research )
We’ve learned about the various tactics deployed by businesses that might run against your interest to address the issue of climate change. These are:
We have to become comfortable with the reality that any project you might have planned will possibly receive push-back from a company whose interests diverge from yours and who are happy to use funds to achieve their goal. For example, if there is a unused plot of land, you might spend week planning to convert it into a communal garden because it gives children the ability to learn about nature, it makes the area more biodiverse, etc. But a corporation might want to buy the plot of land to place a factory or hotel there. Hence as you go to the city council to try to persuade them to convert the used land into a community garden, you are best to be prepared to have a businessman attempting counter your proposal by pitching a revenue stream for the city council. Businesses are a part of society and play a key role in employment, in communities and in shaping the modern world we are accustom to, but as these examples illustrate some are also a great barrier to progress on climate justice.
Obstacles to climate justice extends beyond corporate’s financial interest but projects into how we govern societies such as:
Some of these problems are illustrated to stem from outdated ideologies and harmful motives whilst others from ignorance and arrogance. Regardless of the reason, you have to be content with having to reason with the unreasonable. Some of the individuals you speak with will not budge even as you point out a better way or the risk in their approach. People can be so indoctrinated (as could you) that more aggressive or other forms of climate justice volunteering is necessary. It helps therefore to have in mind per interaction a few alternative plans of action you could implement to ensure you can push your project over the finish line.