A growing wave of companies in all sectors ”” technology, financial services, energy, retail, manufacturing ”” are embracing environmentally safe practices and saving hundreds of millions of dollars, according to corporate leaders and an environmental group’s report Tuesday.
SunPower (STI), Sierra Nevada Brewing, Patagonia, Ikea, Nike (NKE), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), UPS (UPS), Yahoo (YHOO) and others are using green practices in their work sites, in product development and packaging, in energy-saving data centers and other technology, according to a report by the non-profit Environmental Defense Fund.
The report was released here at a news conference featuring green-friendly CEOs and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
David Yarnold, the fund’s executive director, says green business practices “can create competitive advantage” and “strengthen the bottom line.”
“Green” is a form of regulation.
Regulation nearly always reduces competition.
Competition reduces prices amd margins.
“Green” increases costs and reduces choices in the marketplace.
One more “payoff” for those who can afford it.
Don
“Green” can also be stewardship of limited resources.
Stewardship of resources often means reducing wastefulness.
Reducing wastefulness often means reducing costs.
One more “payoff” for both the corporations who recognize financial incentives to do the right thing and for those generations who will come after ours, since they will inherit the benefits of a less-polluted environment and more-advanced technology that uses fewer resources.
And apparently, “green” can promote competition:
[blockquote] One clear sign that the product is making money: Competitors are imitating it, Kavitsky says. [/blockquote]
So let’s review: “green” can save money, promote competition, promote a healthier environment for us and for our posterity, can reduce waste, can promote new and advantageous technologies, and , as a bonus, can help us to be good stewards of the world we have been given by the one who made it, declared it “very good,” and charged us with its care. What’s the downside again?
Laocoon
The downside is that they’re “going green,” alright……their bank accounts are getting greener and greener, while ours are getting emptier!
I like Green, especially since it appeals to my Irish side.
I buy green as often as affordably possible. I recycle, and reuse as often as I can (by the way, so far the only recycled product that is cost effective is aluminum. Paper and other products actually cost more to reproduce and add more chemicals into the environment — but I throw the newspaper into the bin anyway).
I refill my water bottles with tap water (Snopes dot com disproved the myth that plastic bottles can’t be safely reused).
And if companies can make money off products that are better for our environment, hooray for them!
But I draw the line at supporting legislation to hurt businesses and corporations that puts artificial caps and taxes on ‘carbon emissions’ because they lead to ‘climate change’ (note how quickly that changed from ‘global warming’!) which has not been proven factual. That will only give credence to an unproven, hotly contested theory. And it will hinder these corporations from expanding, providing new jobs, researching and developing new technologies, etc.
Did you (hypothetical ‘You’) know that the United States, except for certain urban pockets, has cleaner air and water and better agricultural output than at any time in her history? It’s true! We even have more forested land (not old growth by a long shot) then when Columbus set foot on San Salvador. We also export more food to the world than any other country.
I’d say we are doing pretty good as it is, we don’t need a Kyoto accord to push us along and which exempts other more polluted/polluting nations. What we need are more trade agreements that supports other countries USING our technology to clean up THEIR act.
Well, that’s all I have to say!
Peace
Jim Elliott<><
“‘Green’ is a form of regulation. Regulation nearly always reduces competition. Competition reduces prices amd margins”
This sort of talk ignores the extent to which “unregulated” activities impose costs on other people. Take an unregulated toxic-waste hauler who undercuts his responsible competitors by dumping toxic waste into local sewer systems or along rural roads. He underprices everyone else because he does not internalize the costs of his business. His activities make society much worse off than if he were effectively regulated.
Most pollution problems arise because those who generate waste do not bear the full costs of dealing with it.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“So far the only recycled product that is cost effective is aluminum”
Point taken. But the global rise in resource prices will tip more items (e.g., other metals) into the profitable-to-recycle category.
We also need to consider the costs of alternative disposal methods (e.g., landfills). Even though they may be relatively cheap, they are still greater than zero—and in some cases that will also help tip the balance.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
When recycling or other conservation strategies become popular, some people lose perspective. One of my neighbors puts her kleenex into the paper-recycling bin.
[blockquote] The downside is that they’re “going green,†alright……their bank accounts are getting greener and greener, while ours are getting emptier![/blockquote]
Cennydd #3, since that “downside” is funding my putative retirement (through mutual funds many of us own these companies), I have to confess I don’t see the downside there either. I’m not opposed to honest profitability.
“Honest profitability,” yes, of course! But at what price to those who don’t invest, because they can’t afford it? What then?
“those who won’t work, I don’t feed” — St. Paul.
“Some have meat, and cannot eat
Some want meat and don’t have it
But we have meat and we can eat
So let the Lord be Thank’t.” — Robbie Burns
In the US, everyone has the opportunity to work and put something away for savings. Some don’t and some won’t take advantage of this. Some prefer (yes, I know that’s not politically correct, but it’s true!) to live off the government.
So? Well, just because there are some who can’t take advantage of US opportunities does not mean we have to deny those advantages/opportunites to those who can and do!
Oh, and the taxes of those corporations who do enjoy the ‘honest profitability’ pay for the others mentioned above.
97% of the taxes in the US are paid by the top 50% wage earners
86% are paid by the top 25%.
39% are paid out by the top 1%
(Source: IRS as reported by the Wall Street Journal)
Put them out of business or send them overseas through higher tax burdens, and who pays those taxes?