Business

Worst corporate polluters hide in regulatory ‘darkness,’ study finds on August 25, 2023 at 10:00 am Business News | The Hill

Published

2 years ago

August 25, 2023

Many of the world’s corporations may be responsible for climate damages far greater than their annual profits, a new study has found.

For the biggest polluters worldwide — the fossil fuel-dependent power industry — that means potential legal liabilities around seven times their annual profits, four economists from leading universities wrote on Thursday in Science.

“The average corporate carbon damages [are] economically large,” the economists wrote.

Those climate damages result from a “choice” on the part of regulators, coauthor Michael Greenstone of the University of Chicago told The HIll.

That’s because the key to bringing those emissions down is forcing firms to disclose them — and creating penalties for failing to do so, Greenstone said.

While agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission have proposed making such disclosures mandatory, “to date, that has not been a requirement,” he added.

It has also been politically controversial: The GOP has made a campaign against mandatory climate disclosure a key plank of its platform, as The Hill has reported.

In the absence of rigorous information, the researchers made use of publicly available data based on 15,000 companies’ voluntary disclosures. Then they multiplied those numbers by an estimated “social cost of carbon” — a metric of the damage done by every ton of greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere.

While most firms were responsible for a lot of damage, they write, culpability was not equal.

The team found a wide range of climate costs “across firms, industries, firms within industries, and countries.”

Among “companies who are basically doing the same thing, some emitted more than others producing the same product,” a sign that it’s possible “to produce the product without such heavy emissions,” Greenstone said.

In those instances, government regulators could require particularly high-emitting businesses within a given sector to shift their emissions down; investors could choose not to invest in them; or plaintiffs could sue them.

“You can reduce emissions through many different channels,” Greenstone said. But mandatory disclosure is “the foundation of many forms of carbon policy.

Based on the limited data available, researchers concluded that the average firm worldwide could be liable for damages equal to 44 percent of their annual profits.

That number was a bit lower for U.S. companies — an average of 18.5 percent of profits.

But in this case, averages aren’t very helpful because even in the most polluting sectors — energy, power utilities, transportation and agriculture — have stark variations in their potential carbon damage.

Worldwide, energy companies in the bottom 10 percent of emitters could have caused carbon damages equivalent to 4.5 percent of their annual profits.

But global energy companies in the top 90 percent and above could be responsible for carbon damages of nearly four times their annual profits — or comparatively 100 times as much as those bottom-ranked energy companies.

In the U.S., the 90th percentile polluters in the most carbon-intensive sectors were also responsible for damages in excess of their annual profits.

That meant 234 percent for energy; 178 percent for food, beverages and tobacco; 201 percent for materials, including concrete to petrochemicals; and 342 percent for utilities.

But there’s one big caveat, the authors note: These numbers are likely significant underestimates because they come almost entirely from disclosures that those companies have made voluntarily — companies that face “no penalties for misreporting.”

“This … underscores the need for mandatory and verified emissions reporting,” they write.

They note that financial markets can’t “discipline” high polluters through lower stock prices if they don’t know how many tons of greenhouse gasses those companies release — a core demand of the environmental, social and governance (ESG) movement.

Finally, the need to share their emissions — a source of potential embarrassment and even legal liability — creates a good incentive for companies for bring them down, they wrote.

While many companies worldwide have net-zero policies, those claims are difficult to evaluate against the company’s actual actions.

The economists argue that climate legislation without legal teeth to punish companies that don’t comply, or that mislead investors will struggle to be anything more than “ad hoc.”

Greenstone cautioned it was “inappropriate and incorrect” to lay all this blame at the feet of the companies themselves. When it comes to parsing out the relative responsibility between companies and consumers, he said, “we don’t have the data for it.”

More to the point, he argued, such blame isn’t necessary: regulatory change is. “Companies respond to the regulatory and policy playing field,” he said.

“If there was a carbon price of $200 a ton, the companies would figure out how to deal with it, they might be painful for them, but they would figure out how to do it.”

But right now, he noted, “our national carbon price is effectively zero.”

The findings in Science do not specifically focus on the idea of litigation to make companies pay those damages. But their publication comes amid a new wave of litigation against fossil fuel companies and the legislatures that have reflexively encouraged and subsidized their use

Equilibrium & Sustainability, Business, Energy & Environment, News, Climate change, climate disclosure rules, pollution Many of the world’s corporations may be responsible for climate damages far greater than their annual profits, a new study has found. For the biggest polluters worldwide — the fossil fuel-dependent power industry — that means potential legal liabilities around seven times their annual profits, four economists from leading universities wrote on Thursday in Science. “The average corporate carbon…

Business

Harvard Grads Jobless? How AI & Ghost Jobs Broke Hiring

Published

1 month ago

October 23, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

America’s job market is facing an unprecedented crisis—and nowhere is this more painfully obvious than at Harvard, the world’s gold standard for elite education. A stunning 25% of Harvard’s MBA class of 2025 remains unemployed months after graduation, the highest rate recorded in university history. The Ivy League dream has become a harsh wakeup call, and it’s sending shockwaves across the professional landscape.

Jobless at the Top: Why Graduates Can’t Find Work

For decades, a Harvard diploma was considered a golden ticket. Now, graduates send out hundreds of résumés, often from their parents’ homes, only to get ghosted or auto-rejected by machines. Only 30% of all 2025 graduates nationally have found full-time work in their field, and nearly half feel unprepared for the workforce. “Go to college, get a good job“—that promise is slipping away, even for the smartest and most driven.

Tech’s Iron Grip: ATS and AI Gatekeepers

Applicant tracking systems (ATS) and AI algorithms have become ruthless gatekeepers. If a résumé doesn’t perfectly match the keywords or formatting demanded by the bots, it never reaches human eyes. The age of human connection is gone—now, you’re just a data point to be sorted and discarded.

AI screening has gone beyond basic qualifications. New tools “read” for inferred personality and tone, rejecting candidates for reasons they never see. Worse, up to half of online job listings may be fake—created simply to collect résumés, pad company metrics, or fulfill compliance without ever intending to fill the role.

The Experience Trap: Entry-Level Jobs Require Years

It’s not just Harvard grads who are hurting. Entry-level roles demand years of experience, unpaid internships, and portfolios that resemble a seasoned professional, not a fresh graduate. A bachelor’s degree, once the key to entry, is now just the price of admission. Overqualified candidates compete for underpaid jobs, often just to survive.

One Harvard MBA described applying to 1,000 jobs with no results. Companies, inundated by applications, are now so selective that only those who precisely “game the system” have a shot. This has fundamentally flipped the hiring pyramid: enormous demand for experience, shrinking chances for new entrants, and a brutal gauntlet for anyone not perfectly groomed by internships and coaching.

Burnout Before Day One

The cost is more than financial—mental health and optimism are collapsing among the newest generation of workers. Many come out of elite programs and immediately end up in jobs that don’t require degrees, or take positions far below their qualifications just to pay the bills. There’s a sense of burnout before careers even begin, trapping talent in a cycle of exhaustion, frustration, and disillusionment.

Cultural Collapse: From Relationships to Algorithms

What’s really broken? The culture of hiring itself. Companies have traded trust, mentorship, and relationships for metrics, optimizations, and cost-cutting. Managers no longer hire on potential—they rely on machines, rankings, and personality tests that filter out individuality and reward those who play the algorithmic game best.

AI has automated the very entry-level work that used to build careers—research, drafting, and analysis—and erased the first rung of the professional ladder for thousands of new graduates. The result is a workforce filled with people who know how to pass tests, not necessarily solve problems or drive innovation.

The Ghost Job Phenomenon

Up to half of all listings for entry-level jobs may be “ghost jobs”—positions posted online for optics, compliance, or future needs, but never intended for real hiring. This means millions of job seekers spend hours on applications destined for digital purgatory, further fueling exhaustion and cynicism.

Not Lazy—Just Locked Out

Despite the headlines, the new class of unemployed graduates is not lazy or entitled—they are overqualified, underleveraged, and battered by a broken process. Harvard’s brand means less to AI and ATS systems than the right keyword or résumé format. Human judgment has been sidelined; individuality is filtered out.

What’s Next? Back to Human Connection

Unless companies rediscover the value of human potential, mentorship, and relationships, the job search will remain a brutal numbers game—one that even the “best and brightest” struggle to win. The current system doesn’t just hurt workers—it holds companies back from hiring bold, creative talent who don’t fit perfect digital boxes.

Key Facts:

25% of Harvard MBAs unemployed, highest on record
Only 30% of 2025 grads nationwide have jobs in their field
Nearly half of grads feel unprepared for real work
Up to 50% of entry-level listings are “ghost jobs”
AI and ATS have replaced human judgment at most companies

If you’ve felt this struggle—or see it happening around you—share your story in the comments. And make sure to subscribe for more deep dives on the reality of today’s economy and job market.

This is not just a Harvard problem. It’s a sign that America’s job engine is running on empty, and it’s time to reboot—before another generation is locked out.

Business

Why 9 Million Americans Have Left

Published

2 months ago

October 8, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

The Growing American Exodus

Nearly 9 million Americans now live outside the United States—a number that rivals the population of several states and signals a profound shift in how people view the American dream. This mass migration isn’t confined to retirees or the wealthy. Thanks to remote work, digital nomad visas, and mounting pressures at home, young professionals, families, and business owners are increasingly joining the ranks of expats.

Rising Costs and Shrinking Wallets

Living in the US has become increasingly expensive. Weekly grocery bills topping $300 are not uncommon, and everyday items like coffee and beef have surged in price over the last year. Rent, utilities, and other essentials also continue to climb, leaving many Americans to cut meals or put off purchases just to make ends meet. In contrast, life in countries like Mexico or Costa Rica often costs just 50–60% of what it does in the US—without sacrificing comfort or quality.

Health Care Concerns Drive Migration

America’s health care system is a major trigger for relocation. Despite the fact that the US spends more per person on health care than any other country, millions struggle to access affordable treatment. Over half of Americans admit to delaying medical care due to cost, with households earning below $40,000 seeing this rate jump to 63%. Many expats point to countries such as Spain or Thailand, where health care is both affordable and accessible, as a major draw.

Seeking Safety Abroad

Public safety issues—especially violent crime and gun-related incidents—have made many Americans feel unsafe, even in their own communities. The 2024 Global Peace Index documents a decline in North America’s safety ratings, while families in major cities often prioritize teaching their children to avoid gun violence over simple street safety. In many overseas destinations, newly arrived American families report a significant improvement in their sense of security and peace of mind.

Tax Burdens and Bureaucracy

US tax laws extend abroad, requiring expats to file annual returns and comply with complicated rules through acts such as FATCA. For some, the burden of global tax compliance is so great that thousands relinquish their US citizenship each year simply to escape the paperwork and scrutiny.

The Digital Nomad Revolution

Remote work has unlocked new pathways for Americans. Over a quarter of all paid workdays in the US are now fully remote, and more than 40 countries offer digital nomad visas for foreign professionals. Many Americans are leveraging this opportunity to maintain their US incomes while cutting costs and upgrading their quality of life abroad.

Conclusion: Redefining the Dream

The mass departure of nearly 9 million Americans reveals deep cracks in what was once considered the land of opportunity. Escalating costs, inaccessible healthcare, safety concerns, and relentless bureaucracy have spurred a global search for better options. For millions, the modern American dream is no longer tied to a white-picket fence, but found in newfound freedom beyond America’s borders.

Business

Will Theaters Crush Streaming in Hollywood’s Next Act?

Published

2 months ago

October 8, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

Hollywood is bracing for a pivotal comeback, and for movie lovers, it’s the kind of shake-up that could redefine the very culture of cinema. With the freshly merged Paramount-Skydance shaking up its strategy, CEO David Ellison’s announcement doesn’t just signal a change—it reignites the passion for moviegoing that built the magic of Hollywood in the first place.

Theatrical Experience Roars Back

Fans and insiders alike have felt the itch for more event movies. For years, streaming promised endless options, but fragmented attention left many longing for communal spectacle. Now, with Paramount-Skydance tripling its film output for the big screen, it’s clear: studio leaders believe there’s no substitute for the lights, the hush before the opening credits, and the collective thrill of reacting to Hollywood’s latest blockbusters. Ellison’s pivot away from streaming exclusives taps deep into what unites cinephiles—the lived experience of cinema as art and event, not just content.

Industry Pulse: From Crisis to Renaissance

On the financial front, the numbers are as electrifying as any plot twist. After years of doubt, the box office is roaring. AMC, the world’s largest theater chain, reports a staggering 26% spike in moviegoer attendance and 36% revenue growth in Q2 2025. That kind of momentum hasn’t been seen since the heyday of summer tentpoles—and it’s not just about more tickets sold. AMC’s strategy—premium screens, with IMAX and Dolby Cinema, curated concessions, and branded collectibles—has turned every new release into an event, driving per-customer profits up nearly 50% compared to pre-pandemic norms.

Blockbusters Lead the Culture

Forget the gloom of endless streaming drops; when films like Top Gun: Maverick, Mission: Impossible, Minecraft, and surprise hits like Weapons and Freakier Friday draw crowds, the industry—and movie fans—sit up and take notice. Movie-themed collectibles and concession innovations, from Barbie’s iconic pink car popcorn holders to anniversary tie-ins, have made each screening a moment worth remembering, blending nostalgia and discovery. The focus: high-impact, shared audience experiences that streaming can’t replicate.

Streaming’s Limits and Studio Strategy

Yes, streaming is still surging, but the tide may be turning. The biggest franchises, and the biggest cultural events, happen when audiences come together for a theatrical release. Paramount-Skydance’s shift signals to rivals that premium storytelling and box office spectacle are again at the center of Hollywood value creation. The result is not just higher profits for exhibitors like AMC, but a rebirth of movie-going as the ultimate destination for fans hungry for connection and cinematic adventure.

Future Forecast: Culture, Community, and Blockbuster Dreams

As PwC and others warn that box office totals may take years to fully catch up, movie lovers and industry leaders alike are betting that exclusive theatrical runs, enhanced viewing experiences, and fan-driven engagement are the ingredients for long-term recovery—and a new golden age. The Paramount-Skydance play is more than a business move; it’s a rallying cry for the art of the theatrical event. Expect more big bets, more surprises, and—finally—a long-overdue renaissance for the silver screen.

For those who believe in the power of cinema, it’s a thrilling second act—and the best seat in the house might be front and center once again.