While a move like this from a multi-billion dollar corporation is generally done foremost to garner positive press, as long as the results are good, I don't think it ultimately matters whether the intent is 100% altruistic. Doing good things doesn't become automatically bad just because someone profits from it.

Besides which, I don't think it can be completely ruled out as a hollow and cynical move either; at the end of the day, executives are people too, and many of them have families and would presumably like their children and grandchildren to have a healthy planet to live on.

I don't care, what they're doing isn't fucking cool at all and it comes off as being more annoying since they're trying to shove politics down everyone's throats ... 

How would you like it if Nintendo got into the pattern of being politically more upfront with you in their works such as openly promoting Christian superiority, anti-LGBTQI, or anti-abortion movements ? 

Do you somehow think that that actively promoting politics in everything that these corporations do isn't a detraction at all ?

Again, I don't get how the notion of leaving a healthy planet for future generations is "political". Seems just plain common sense to me.

Considering that been 'green' has a strongly linked political movement, it is political since it's not a widespread consensus ... 

What you deem personally as common sense =/= Consensus ... 

I'm not about to give Sony a free pass for all of their recent actions so far ... 

You still didn't answer my question. How would you like it if your favourite corporation or business got all politically controversial as you saw it on their customers but others didn't see it your way ? Would you be alright if they made a habit out of this ? Do you find that company's getting political all the time as not being somehow toxic to you as the consumer ? 

And you missed the entire point I was replying to you when you complained about polarization, dividing in groups or looking who is doing instead of what is being done.

First, if you don't look the whole process from every single point and ramification you can't assure if in the end the measure will be greener or not. Just like making biodegradable plastic that seems a very good action in Brazil became an issue because those were throw in rivers, they were decomposed by bacteria which reduced the oxygen on the water and ended up killing more fishes than simply having a common plastic bag that would be floating there. There are plenty more examples (like electric cars which due to the big and heavy batteries, being charged by thermal usines, on its lifecycle had a bigger carbon footprint than regular petrol cars).

Second, you failed to understand that in several places the division is being made exactly by progressives/liberals. Who want to put people in group and make they fight among them because of perceived inequalities and a wish of equality? That is liberals doing. So yes I don't mind giving credits for good propositions they make, but you always have to look at motivation. Like in here the defense of environment by them is mostly a way to bash agroindustrial.

Yep, there are many cases of hypocritical people living in luxury complaining about people hunting animals or doing a polluting work without thinking that taking that out most probably those people would die of famine since they are already close to it.

When you worry about the environment and do actions to help preserve it fully (not small actions) that is really for the benefit of future generations. When you speak about it (doing it or not) it is self promotion.

Nice marketing piece. Sadly says as little as it means.

It just doesn't seem remotely comparable to me though. What is so "toxic", so offensive, about the idea that our kids, grandkids, great grandkids, deserve good living conditions?

Yeah I don't get the opposition either.

I mean...
If people end up being wrong about climate change... We would have left the world in a better state for all future generations.
If it turns out we were right about climate change and we did nothing... Ouch, count the lives lost and displaced.

Nah man you don't understand. Caring for our environment is part of the progressive agenda and progressives are bad, ergo caring for our environment is bad.

It's political because if we are destroying the environment, then we are potentially dooming future generations, and in the most severe cases suggested, like runaway greenhouse effect, the right to life. That ties directly into politics.

Something people would have to ask themselves, like the type of people who believe 'saving' and 'protecting' the environment is absolutely necessary, for reasons such as future generations, is what about abortion? If a mother has the right to decide if what's inside her lives or dies, based on how it will impact her future, then men and woman surely have the right to decide how they want to treat the environment. If a woman is willing to end a potential life one way, then a woman or man should be able to ruin a small piece of the environment, because it's their body, their mind, their future, and their choice.

Now while you can say others and future generations could be harmed by destroying a small portion of the environment yourself, killing a fetus could also fall under that. That fetus could be the best thing that ever happened to someone, or humanity overall, yet nobody will ever know if it's not allowed to live up top it's full potential and make it's own choices. To say we know exactly what will happen to the environment if we keep doing what we're going would be dishonest. The smartest individuals have used the data to come up with predictions many times, and have never come close the the actual results, while almost always overshooting by a mile.

If we don't know what a fetus will become, which means whatever could happen if it's born doesn't matter if the mother feels it will negatively impact her life, then the same would apply to the environment. If we don't know exactly what will happen if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, then the future doesn't matter as much as the people who choose to emit CO2, because of how it would negatively impact them if they didn't or couldn't.

What if that fetus is the next Einstein and Musk rolled into one, who will easily solve man made nuclear fusion, also solving climate change for the most part, along with poverty? Should we take the risk or let people decide for themselves?