> Prioritizing the environment? Straight from the radical liberal left playbook. It means allowing my children die of hunger because I can’t find a job so a dolphin survives.

So if I understand what you're saying as a reply to my question, you mean that having "We prioritize society and the environment instead of maximizing profits at all costs" as a explicit value for the Google workplace, means that you'll end up without food for your child?

Not sure when/how dolphins became Google's business, but I might have missed something recently as I don't follow their every move.

Heh, sorry. Being sarcastic. You’re going into the right direction. A lot of people believe to save the environment (or fight global warming) the economy has to suffer, therefore I will lose my job, won’t be able to put food on the table, and all of that so cute animals can survive.

I was super sarcastic because it’s not a view I share, but pretty common in the US. Heck, it’s similar to the coronavirus situation right now, we can’t stop the economy just to save people who are about to die anyway.

I think in general, there have been some examples where the the environment has been prioritized of over people in a way that is hard to unsee. This can make some people very suspicious of such taglines and seeding the interpretation of the balance to others.

An eye opener for me is how water policy is impacting small farmers in the eastern part of California. Imagine spending 40 years building a business, and then being told that starting in 2021 you will have to pay 1M$ in fees to continue pumping water that you have legal rights to using your own infrastructure. It is literally taking peoples livelihoods without any compensation and eminent domain.