Can organic tobacco reduce smoking related illnesses?

If this sounds stupid at the outset that is because it is. But how come we buy the garbage most companies put out in the name of ESG? The social problem of tobacco is not that the tobacco is grown in a way that causes pollution but that its use is one the largest contributors to certain types of illnesses and cancers. So what does an commitment of a cigarette company to fight climate change and for diversity in the work place really mean? 

In the same vein, 

- the salient impact of a financial institution like banks on society is not the energy it uses to power its buildings and back office and travel etc but what it funds when it lends and who it lends to. 

- the salient impact of internet companies is not how much carbon is emitted in delivering content because it pales in comparison to their impact on your behavior - addiction to screens and how they compete for attention with reading, playing sports, deep contemplation or just resting and sleep. 

- the salient impact of meat production is not the environmental burden of raising livestock but that this is the one industry responsible for the merciless slaughter of animals. 

- the salient impact of a university is not whether the campus is net zero (a fad that is only helping inflate the size of administration and bureaucracy not to mention spending and budgets) but how it shapes the intellect of students and are they simply indoctrinating them on issues that are complex and have a simple but popular and flawed solution.

- the salient impact of the health care industry is also not climate change causing emissions or the hazardous wastes but how opaque the costs are from a consumer perspective and how excessively expensive and inaccessible good care is for most people in the world. 

Of course each of these industries signing up to flight climate change by shifting to renewable energy etc is ok but the energy cost of doing business for each of these types of industries is so trivial that they can switch away from fossil energy with almost no impact on profits. So what is all the hype about. And the fact that renewable energy is cheaper today is no thanks to them (a whole another topic as to who is it due to. Hint: not big business!). If anything, wealthy corporations switching to solar and wind is only driving up cost of renewables for the rest of society. 

The fact that businesses are lining up to do ESG and fight climate voluntarily suggests they must have figured out it not only doesn't hurt them but it benefits them. Coal, oil and gas producers or makers of steel, cement, fertilizer and automobiles the real products that have made our lives better (of course with  modern medicines and satellite communication as well) are opposing it because it requires them to fundamentally stop doing what is their core business unlike the users of these materials whose profits come from value added labor, capital and packaging (not just physical but psychological). 

Make no mistake, it is the fossil fuel economy that is the problem and that is both producers and consumers and lets focus on them and not be unsuspecting cattle that is happy with the fodder that industry feed us in the name of ESG. So when these so-called enlightened CEOs of wealthy companies in Internet technology, finance, health care, entertainment, even big academic corporations like universities, sign up as altruistic warriors for the environment and society look closer at whether they are really doing anything about the most salient aspect of their business which might not necessarily be climate change or lack of diversity, another popular issue of the day that makes a lot of people feel good about themselves when they champion it. 

I dislike the phrase putting lipstick on a pig because how the way we refer to and treat pigs and animals in general says more about who we are. So let me say ESG claims often amount to applying cosmetics.