Business finds benefits in going green

[Edric O]

Businesses and markets are made up of citizens, anyway. So if citizens can't be trusted, businesses and markets can't be trusted either.

[Tatar Khan]

The problem with environment is that we can not evaluate it in any rational sense enough to make the decisions so neither the government, market or people can do it properly. Much better education is needed and research into environment to understand it before any group can claim that they have what it takes to protect it. Currently only trial and error method of mix of different methods could be used with hopes that they will work.

[Sneakgab]

I disagree. There is enough knowledge on the environment to pursue protecting it. Maybe not enough knowledge to pursue protecting it in the most cost-efficient manner but definitely enough knowledge to pursue protecting it. Few pursuits are followed perfectly (such as war), but they are pursued anyway.

You would be surprised at the extent of computer model generating programs and field research.

Besides, some things are simple enough to understand. Wiping out forests = bad, polluting atmosphere till hole in ozone layer ends humanity = bad.

My view on the matter is that companies will always take the most profitable course  based on ''short term'' profits. By short term I mean the life/job span (generally the same due to lack of social mobility) of the CEO/board room making the decisions. Eg: Wiping out the forest will screw the next CEO who will now have a useless plot of land, but this does not concern the current CEO as long as $ during his ''term'' is maximized. In a similar manner, it does not matter if the CEO's actions contribute to the destruction of the world in 50 years so long as he is not alive to witness this. This can only be said to be generally evident due to the decisions taken by companies.

Call me a conspirator, but I am also fairly convinced that the wealthy (CEO's of huge corpations and the like) have great influence over the actions of govt. This could be said to be evident from the general lack of govt intervention.

If these assumptions are generally true, then as per usual it is up to science to save the day. People working in these fields must strive to make green methods more profitable as the CEOs are too greedy, the govt to corrupt, and the general populace to stupid and apathetic to change any thing.

This method has worked in many cases where it has been pursued. The main problems are probably as Edrico said: coal and oil use. Those two rescources are extremely profitable and extremely harmful to the environment. Ecologists have met success striking where there was opportunity, such as in the desert dune example. For now it may be best for them to exploit such un-noticed ''cracks'', but of course I am not sure how much of a difference this can make in the big picture.

Ie: Science must find a greener and more profitable rescource than coal and oil or the environment is probably lost. This is very difficult because it is not efficiency we speak of here. Hydrogen fuel would be FREE (Most abundant gas on Earth, as opposed to oil which requires costly extraction not to mention costly wars that are fought over it fairly often) for heavens sake. No cost and you get where you need to. Ie: Hydrogen powered cars would be MUCH more EFFICIENT. But you probably couldn't charge people for hydrogen so it would be much less PROFITABLE. In science it is efficiency that is generally sought, not profitability. The latter is about economics, which is not what science is about. In addition to this, scource must be cheaper in the ''short term'' as described earlier. Obviously, oil and coal have a huge head start here considering their infastructure and the like. Only CEO's with a lengthy term remaining would consider investing else-wise (not a real word probably, but whatever).

The only other hope is that oil and coal run out before the world does, lol.

BTW: Nuclear power is much cleaner and more efficient that coal. For heavens sake, coal is a power source nearly a century old! It is remarkable and a testament to the stifling power of capitalism that we still use a power source from the industrial age! (well, maybe not THAT old, but you get the idea.

''Much better education is needed and research into environment to understand it before any group can claim that they have what it takes to protect it''

Many groups have a logical plans backed up by years of field research, computer modeling, theoretical work,e.t.c. The whole ''schebang''. What more can you ask for it? Does anyone ask for all these years of work and planning before they decide to destroy the environment, before they launch a satellite, go to war, do anything? Many actions with far greater potential for destruction and waste (ie: being wasteful and useless in themselves) are given the go ahead on much less).

What these people don't have is the money required to initiate these plans. Of course, this was expected to be the case by them. They did this work anyway so no one can turn around and say: Oh, but IF YOU DID have the money, what would you do  with it? huh huh? you don't even have a plan.

For this I applaud them and say that this excuse for apathy (to be used by the populace) and greed (for the coporates) cannot be realistically given.

Seriously, the amount of work done in preparing plans to protect the environment is staggering.

Finally, there ALREADY has been much trial and error with many ecological projects. Ecologists have not had enough wealth for grand undertakings but there have definitely been numerous smaller undertakings. While not being enough to change the big picture they have defininetly provided the experience and trial and error that you speak of.

At least, that is the way it is in SA.

''The problem with environment is that we can not evaluate it in any rational sense enough to make the decisions so neither the government, market or people can do it properly.''

If we are speaking about evaluating it's worth, then that has been the centre of the plan of SA ecologists in protecting the environment. The idea, basically, is this: Show corporates that the environment is worth $... more $ to them alive than dead:D.

However, there is only so much people can do strictly following policies that ENSURE maximum profit for CEO's. This restricting... restriction obviously hampers progress greatly.

If we are speaking about evaluating it in terms of property rights, well as Edrico said such legislation is already in place for the most part. It is illegal for neighbour to dump his garbage in you're garden but when a company fills you're living space with all kinds of sulphurous and carbonic oxides that's ''A OK''. I'm not sure if there is legislation regarding the air or if it is just not enforced. In my opinion all the people who pollute air that they do not own should have to pay up (a fine to the govt for public property, and from being sued for private property) just as they had vandalised a public pay phone or a shop. In my opinion this legislation does not exist because it would be detrimental to the corporates. Why else do we make this exception when so such exception is given for property in the solid state?

''or impose policies that the people do not want. Clearly the second option is not only morally wrong, but also impossible in a democracy''

Well, I don't know about. It didn't seem like (from polls) there was majority favor for the invasion of Iraq in USA, but it happened anyway. In a direct democracy it would be impossible, but in this choose a candidate and cross you're fingers democracy the true desires of the people is not as much of an issue.

[Edric O]

I agree with Sneakgab. There is already a very large body of knowledge on environmental issues. Of course we don't know everything, but we can say with 100% confidence that burning oil and coal, for example, is very bad for the environment and has a global impact. We can also say with 100% confidence that oil and coal will eventually run out. Some people argue that switching to different energy sources would be too painful a process and would cause a lot of economic problems. That is very likely true. But we don't have a choice in the matter. Even if pollution did not exist, we would still have to switch off oil and coal eventually, since they will run out. The existence of pollution means that switching sooner is better than later.

In this case, as in many others, the profit motive clearly clashes with the long term interests of humanity.

Well, I don't know about. It didn't seem like (from polls) there was majority favor for the invasion of Iraq in USA, but it happened anyway. In a direct democracy it would be impossible, but in this choose a candidate and cross you're fingers democracy the true desires of the people is not as much of an issue.

There is of course no guarantee that making economic decisions in a democratic manner (aka socialism) would necessarily result in the most environmentally friendly solution in every case. However, there is a strong argument to be made that, on average, socialism would be much more environmentally friendly than capitalism. The reason is because the wealthy CEOs and shareholders who make economic decisions under capitalism have enough money to escape the consequences of those decisions. If the climate changes, then can just buy a new mansion somewhere else. They have no reason to worry about their children's future, even in a polluted world. On the other hand, if we put the power to make economic decisions in the hands of ordinary people, those people will be worried about what might happen if climate change comes to their town, and they will have reason to worry about their children's future. So they will probably be more interested in preserving the environment, because they have something to lose.

[gunner154]

The common people are not that rich anyway, so they would be less likely to escape the negative effects of environmental degradation.

[Tatar Khan]

Something really unexpected for US and current administration although it is very logical.

US WAKES UP TO ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF CLEAN ENERGY

US president George W. Bush may not have signed the Kyoto Protocol for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but with consumers feeling the pinch of high oil prices with conflict in the Middle East disrupting global oil supplies, increasingly his administration sees a link between the country

[Andrew]

I always find it humourus with biofuel. We are turning food into fuel. So with demand for food increasing because farmers are producing biofuels instead of food, prices for food increase. Substituting food for fuel is not a good idea. Although "waste" food that is produced when making real food is good. An example is the bi-product waste made in french fry factories that is thrown out.

[Tatar Khan]

At the same time the demand for the biofuel could help out agriculture in the third world as they could become the provider of food stuff for fuel, also the rising prices of food could allow governments to drop the wasteful agricultural subsidies.

[Edric O]

Yes, but the demand for biofuel in Western countries could also increase the cost of food produced in the Third World to such a level that poor people in those countries can no longer afford to buy food, and farmers prefer to grow cash crops for biofuel rather than cheap food for the masses.

As for the news story you posted about the Bush administration's newfound concern for the environment: I'll believe it when I see some real change. For now all I see is a bunch of nice words.

[Tatar Khan]

Well if the West will be ever able to drop all its subsidies and tariffs and quotas on agricultural products than the third world would benefit overall.

The greater demand for food at home will force US to abandon its export subsidies to agriculture as it will want to keep food stuff at home, thus allowing the third world countries' farmers that were being killed off by dumping to restart their agriculture. Same goes for other western nations. The food production int he third world would benefit overall all of us and it will also help the third world economies to rise up.

[Andrew]

Even if prices for goods (such as wheat) increase, farmers will not make more money. Prices for pesticides/herbicides, fuel, equipment, labour etc all increase. The bread that the farmer buys to feed his family also increases. Farmers are at the bottom of the food chain and do not determine prices (the market or the corporations they sell to decide that) or costs (corporations that sell pesticides etc charge whatever).

The farmer simply cannot decide to increase the prices because the big corporations will simply buy from the farmer next door. And the farmer cannot use less pesticides or fuel.

[Sneakgab]

What if the farmer next door also decides his crops aren't going off cheap? Maybe the farmers could make something of an economic alliance.

[Andrew]

The dairy industry has this and it works great. I'm not sure why the rest of the farming industry does not do this well. I guess the little guys want it, but any of the big farmers are against it. I've seen this before with other farming initiations at price control.

[Sneakgab]

Hmmm... I don't really know anything about the farming market. Maybe the big guys are offered subsidies or something? But that in effect seems like simply buying their crops for more to me (ie: They do not ally and sell crops cheaper in exchange for subsidies. Subsidies basically = extra $, in effect, for their crop)?

[Tatar Khan]

THE GREEN KEEPS FLOWING TO GREEN

SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS

Financial turmoil and an economy on the brink of recession are testing US companies