In the wake of yet another gas pipeline bursting (despite the warnings of the native Indiginous population who this will affect the most) in the Ecuadorian region of the Amazon rainforest, we thought it was important to shed some light on corporate companies’ environmental impact versus societies’.

The pipeline, owned by OCP Ecuador, burst in late January, resulting in crude oil spilling over a large area of the Amazon Rainforest. The scene was well documented on the internet by those nearby and naturally, did the “viral tour” on social media.

Locals have been warning officials of this disaster for months and have estimated that the damage to the surrounding environment will take at least 20 years to recover from.

Catastrophes like this happen all of the time at the hands of large corporations who seem to value profit over the environment and the communities they affect. Yet despite there being laws that punish environmental pollution, companies often get off lightly with a fine.

We wanted to find out why.

On the face of it, it would appear that years of lobbying and ingraining themselves in the political hierarchy have given large corporations a seat at the table when it comes to climate and environmental policy making. And that is sadly echoed on a regular basis in the failure for lawmakers to follow through on their promises to protect regions or implement greener policies.

We’ve found, however, that there’s also often something more cunning afoot when it comes to pointing the finger of blame.

A recent study of Exxon Mobil found the fossil fuel giant used propaganda and PR spin to put the focus of global warming back onto consumers to avoid blame and negative damage to the company’s already fragile reputation.

Phrases such as “energy saving consumers can make such a real difference” and “heat your home efficiently” were thrown at customers, subtly shifting the balance towards a consumer-driven narrative that puts the responsibility on your average Joe (or Joanne), rather than the multi-billion dollar company drilling holes in the earth and making a huge profit out of it.

During the 60s and 70s, the majority of Exxon Mobil’s marketing was spent denying climate change even existed. Now, the company has a more nuanced approach: turning climate change into everyone’s problem.

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen companies attempt this rather insidious kind of ‘greenwashing’.

CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) used to be a way for businesses to present ‘green credentials’ to satisfy consumers and shareholders, without having to really change the way they operated. As the world has got more savvy to these corporate games, it would seem brands are encouraging consumers to drive the narrative, rather than the company itself. Today, the average person is judged for using too much plastic, for not recycling enough, or for driving petrol/diesel cars (despite the average electric car setting you back over £40,000).

Of course, all of that is important. However, with the majority of global emissions created by only 100 corporations world-wide, it would suggest that despite our individual efforts, this is an issue that can only truly be solved with political and systemic changes – including sanctions to companies that don’t live up to their carbon impact goals, investment in renewable energy sources, and the defunding of processes such as fracking, drilling for crude oil and fast fashion.

The New York Times reports that “the world’s wealthiest nations are disproportionately responsible for climate change”, however it’s generally the poorest communities that are the most negatively affected by the consequences.

As the world (albeit slowly) moves towards a future with cleaner energy resources, less developed nations (who have only just been able to get access to the fossil fuel industry) are being asked to meet the same standard as those who have been chugging out fossil fuels for years, with less access to funding and support from more developed countries.

When looking to the future, whilst you could argue that playing “the blame game” isn’t always the most productive process, it’s important to consider the contributions of the average person versus huge corporations when we think of policies and action.

There’s no denying that corporations should have policies in place to limit their effect on our environment, and that whilst we should all play our part, it would be silly to blame Gina down the road (who’s working two jobs and raising 3 children) for not recycling every day, when companies such as McDonalds, Amazon and Exxon Mobil continue to do far more damage in a day than any of us will in a lifetime.