Tackling climate change and net-zero goals used to be a regular part of corporate America’s public relations missions. But as culture-war boycotts take a costly toll on brands like Bud Light and Target, many companies are going quiet on potentially divisive green initiatives, to avoid potential fallout.

Straight Arrow News contributor Adrienne Lawrence wonders when protecting the planet became a divisive issue and explains why companies need to rethink their strategy.

“Green hushing” is what they’re calling it, that [sic] when it becomes a bigger part of a larger corporate strategy to try to veer away from divisive subjects concerning the environment. But I’m dying to know — how is it divisive to advocate for sustainable practices? And who are these consumers out there that are on the side of the earth running out of resources becoming unlivable and all of mankind somehow dying in an apocalyptic showdown? 

Perhaps someone at DocuSign could probably tell me, because apparently the electronic signature firm who once proudly and loudly touted its efforts to reach net zero emissions by 2050, has now gone mum. Over the last three years, they’ve really quieted down on their sustainability initiatives, carbon-neutral status, and net-zero emissions. It seems also chipmaker Qualcomm has been operating similarly.

Why not talk about these things? Efforts to keep mankind alive should neither be taboo nor risqué. In March, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made clear that we’re speeding toward catastrophe, giving us approximately 10 years to get it together before we cross the point of no return. The global average temperatures — they’re estimated to rise to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels around the first half of the 2030s. And according to scientists, any greater increase in temperature would result in catastrophic heat waves, flooding, drought, crop failures, and species extinction, making it significantly harder for humanity to survive.