The Ball Corporation has made improvements to its environmental record since 2006, when the company began its first formal sustainability efforts.[50] In 2008 the Ball Corporation issued its first sustainability report and began releases subsequent sustainability reports on its website.[45] The first report was an ACCA-Ceres North American Sustainability Awards cowinner of the Best First Time Reporter award in 2009.[51][citation needed]
In the Toxic 100 list for 2004, using data from 2002, researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) identified the Ball Corporation as the 59th-largest corporate producer of Air pollution in the United States, with an estimated 4.57 million pounds of toxic air released annually.[52] The PERI report for 2008, using data from 2005, ranked the Ball Corporation 54th on its Toxic 100 list; PERI’s report for 2010, using data from 2006, ranked it 65th.[53] The PERI studies indicated major pollutants included glycol ethers and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene.[54]
The PERI Toxic 100 Air Polluters list for 2013 ranked the Ball Corporation as 619 in its list of companies producing the most air pollution in the United States.[55] In 2015 Newsweek ranked the Ball Corporation as 70th in their “Green 2015” report, which reviewed the environmental performances of the 500 largest publicly traded companies in the United States.[56][57][58]
That’s not really relevant to the post, is it? And that kind of praise on Wikipedia usually comes from the company editing its own Wikipedia page and being very picky about which data they cite.
I’d say it’s relevant because I certainly didn’t know anything about the company the meme is discussing, and that was a fun fact to see. I especially appreciate the wiki link cuz that’s what I wanted to go to after asking such a head scratcher.
I know the Wikipedia link is relevant, but specifically the except seems totally disconnected to me from the post. It feels inorganic, to the point I almost doubt OP’s motives. Maybe I’m wrong.
Anyway I’m not trying to say any of it is untrue, just that it should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I hope I’m not gatekeeping, but if I’m gatekeeping anything it’s not ‘good news’, it’s what can be posted under a meme post. But as I said, I’m just trying to provide context, I guess it came out pretty gatekeepy so I’ll try to tone that down next time.
Kudos for the well thought out and introspective comment.
It did get me thinking about whether or not these numbers were affected by the purchasing and selling of the various subsidiaries, and if that happened, whether or not it should “count”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_Corporation
Environmental record
The Ball Corporation has made improvements to its environmental record since 2006, when the company began its first formal sustainability efforts.[50] In 2008 the Ball Corporation issued its first sustainability report and began releases subsequent sustainability reports on its website.[45] The first report was an ACCA-Ceres North American Sustainability Awards cowinner of the Best First Time Reporter award in 2009.[51][citation needed]
In the Toxic 100 list for 2004, using data from 2002, researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) identified the Ball Corporation as the 59th-largest corporate producer of Air pollution in the United States, with an estimated 4.57 million pounds of toxic air released annually.[52] The PERI report for 2008, using data from 2005, ranked the Ball Corporation 54th on its Toxic 100 list; PERI’s report for 2010, using data from 2006, ranked it 65th.[53] The PERI studies indicated major pollutants included glycol ethers and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene.[54]
The PERI Toxic 100 Air Polluters list for 2013 ranked the Ball Corporation as 619 in its list of companies producing the most air pollution in the United States.[55] In 2015 Newsweek ranked the Ball Corporation as 70th in their “Green 2015” report, which reviewed the environmental performances of the 500 largest publicly traded companies in the United States.[56][57][58]
Damn, it seems like they’re actually making an effort at improvement.
That’s not really relevant to the post, is it? And that kind of praise on Wikipedia usually comes from the company editing its own Wikipedia page and being very picky about which data they cite.
Gatekeeping on positive news?
I’d say it’s relevant because I certainly didn’t know anything about the company the meme is discussing, and that was a fun fact to see. I especially appreciate the wiki link cuz that’s what I wanted to go to after asking such a head scratcher.
I know the Wikipedia link is relevant, but specifically the except seems totally disconnected to me from the post. It feels inorganic, to the point I almost doubt OP’s motives. Maybe I’m wrong.
Anyway I’m not trying to say any of it is untrue, just that it should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I hope I’m not gatekeeping, but if I’m gatekeeping anything it’s not ‘good news’, it’s what can be posted under a meme post. But as I said, I’m just trying to provide context, I guess it came out pretty gatekeepy so I’ll try to tone that down next time.
Kudos for the well thought out and introspective comment.
It did get me thinking about whether or not these numbers were affected by the purchasing and selling of the various subsidiaries, and if that happened, whether or not it should “count”.
You’re right, we should discourage any efforts to improve anything because they’re not immediately perfect.
Not what I said at all