Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Going green: Social consciousness or profits?

Here is some interesting information and opinion on the currently popular trend of going "green". I don't think it hurts anyone to conserve. Haven't a lot of people and businesses always been doing that? Aren't businesses always looking for ways to save? Now, because it is politically correct to "be green", everyone is looking to occupy the "moral high ground" and gain a competitive edge. It sounds like business as usual to me.

Corporations find business case for going green
Global giants, from Wal-Mart to HP, see cost savings, other benefits

By Allison Linn
Senior writer

In recent months, environmental advocate Gwen Ruta has started feeling like the proverbial Hollywood starlet who, after years of toiling in bit parts, is suddenly being hailed as an overnight success story.
“All of a sudden, everybody wants you to be in their movie,” Ruta, director of corporate partnerships with Environmental Defense, said recently with a laugh.
It’s possible to take that statement quite literally — after all, the environment was the star of the Oscar-winning “An Inconvenient Truth.” But what is really exciting Ruta these days isn’t the buzz out of Hollywood but the increasing interest across the country, on Wall Street. For corporate executives, going green is becoming, if not mainstream, at least more commonplace.


For the remainder of the article, go here:

For commentary on this subject, go here:

Message #1 - 04/17/07 02:23 PM
Are corporations experiencing a sudden rash of social consciousness? Or are companies increasingly realizing that going green could be a new way for companies to save — or even make — more green, as in money. What do you think of this corporate trend?

Sane Steve
Message #3 - 04/18/07 04:00 PM
It's another case of political correctness gone haywire. The US has some of the strictest environmental laws and regulations in the world and on average, some of the cleanest air and water in the world. There's nothing wrong with trying to pollute less, but businesses can't afford to do this and lose money, so there are limits. Unfortunately all this global warming hype (hoax) will create other ways for companies to make money, including buying and selling carbon offsets. Trust me, this has nothing to do with their environmental conscience any more than it does Al Gore's, who will continue to live life as he always has and lie to the public by getting you to believe his phony carbon footprint is neutral because he buys carbon offsets and burns "green" energy. How stupid do you think the American public is? Even though it is a hoax, if companies can profit from this global warming myth, they'll sign on to it whether or not they really buy into its truth.

The mainstream media and all those who they interview want to convince you that the global warming debate is over and it is a settled issue. They want you to believe that only deluded, wacko, far-right idiots are skeptical about this. Makes for great TV and radio. But the truth is that this debate is far from over. There are many scientists with no ties to the energy industry or the Bush administration with plenty of evidence to refute the IPCC report as well as those scientists funded by tree-hugging organizations who swear our demise is imminent. You can quickly uncover their own hypocrisy by watching their behavior. And they'll never support an alternative that would help their cause, like nuclear energy. Windmills are fine, just not in their community or city.

I would clearly focus on becoming less dependent on foreign oil, but not in the name of global warming. Then I would spend my money on curing diseases and easing world hunger and starvation, something we as men and women can do something about, unlike trying to cool the entire planet off, which is almost 100% out of our control. That's true social consciousness!

No comments: