New York City hosted Climate Week NYC from Sept. 22-29, an annual conference started in 2009 to bring together business leaders, political change makers, local decision makers and civil society representatives of all ages and backgrounds to drive the transition to a more sustainable and fossil fuel-free future with the esteemed United Nations General Assembly. the international non-profit named Climate Group behind Climate Week, says its purpose is “to drive climate action, fast.” 2024 Climate Week NYC brought together more than 100,000 attendees and consisted of over 600 events and activities. The theme of 2024 Climate Week NYC, coming in the wake of 1.5 degrees Celsius global temperature rise, was “It’s Time.” 

While most people, and certainly most participants and speakers, agree that it is time to confront the impact of human industry and activities on the climate, it’s not as clear what that looks like. For decades, climate activism has been hampered by goalpost shifting. As goals we have set for climate change inch ever closer, from limiting warming to under 1.5 degrees Celsius to having a net-zero carbon economy by 2050, many fossil fuel reliant industry leaders have argued that such limits are unrealistic or economically unviable, pushing back the deadlines for these goals. Heather Zincal, the global head of sustainability for JPMorgan Chase & Co., explained that JP Morgan thinks there needs to be a shift from the goals they no longer think are attainable, particularly keeping global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius. Understandably, many people, myself included, are frustrated at the inclusion of large corporations in these conversations when such corporations often call necessary climate action unrealistic or unattainable. As Al Gore said at Climate Week, fossil fuel companies are not going to “lead the way” in tackling climate change. 

The primary goal of the large corporations represented at NYC Climate Week, such as Amazon, Google, JP Morgan and Occidental Petroleum, is always to make money. These companies will do whatever it takes to grow their profit margins; no other goal of the company can interfere with the primary, existential goal of profit generation. The turn towards environmentally conscious business practices is the result of climate activism and governmental regulation, making it harder for corporations to make money by burning fossil fuels, which accelerates the transition to clean energy. This transition is happening, and we saw many commitments from large corporations to move towards clean energy during NYC Climate Week, from greater support of nuclear energy and electrical vehicles to a commitment to purchasing clean energy. However, when we hear corporations say certain climate goals are “unrealistic” or “unattainable,” what they mean is certain goals are unrealistic while maintaining these corporations’ profit margins. These profit margins are not necessary for anyone else except these corporations, but they will not give up their profitability unless they are forced to. 

When their direct profitability comes from a massive consumption of fossil fuels that directly contributes to climate change, they are sacrificing the public good. It is important to include large corporations in conversations about climate change and make sure climate goals we set are attainable. However, we should not take corporations at their word when they say certain goals are unattainable. For the longest time, keeping the global temperature change under 1.5 degrees Celcius was the goal. Now, corporations are questioning that because they think it is too costly to their bottom line. We need to be honest, upfront and loud about how the cost to public and environmental health is too massive not to achieve this transition as soon as physically possible. If we need to sacrifice profitability to reach climate mitigation goals, we absolutely should do so. 

During the U.N. General Assembly, which coincided with Climate Week, countries agreed to a Pact for the Future, which calls for continued efforts to phase out fossil fuels with the ambition of keeping global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius. However, there is no guarantee anyone will abide by this non-binding agreement and in a few years executives from petroleum companies, transnational banks or tech companies that rely on fossil fuel inputs may start claiming that less than 2 degrees Celsius is also an unrealistic goal. What is most necessary and vital to the success of the climate movement is putting pressure on politicians to stop accepting money from fossil fuel companies and enact strong regulations on fossil fuel production and consumption that reflect the real public, global and environmental costs of a fossil fuel-based economy.

Stuart Cremer, FCRH ’26, is an English and environmental studies double major from Mountain View, Calif.