Comments on: Who’s pushing a green agenda in Copenhagen? Business, that’s who

By: Mike Sutter

Mike Sutter — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:49:28 +0000

We have been “going green’ for four years by instituting waste reduction through recycling, replacing energy inefficiency lighting with state of the art lighting, reducing overall energy use on our major electrical ‘hogs” and monitoring electrical bills so that we better understand “demand”, for example. We offer green materials in the manufacture of desk tops, cabinetry, store fixtures and components and use nearly 100% environmental adhesives including LEED certifiable ones.
This is all done voluntarily, but what “Cap and Trade” will give us is nothing more than higher electric bills that we will be unable to pass on to customers. So in all fairness, we are doing our share, yet getting little in return for our efforts and investments. That doesn’t make a lot of business sense from the standpoint of a “return on investment”. Being enviro-friendly can’t be taken to the bank since it still takes cold hard cash.

By: Craig

Craig — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:15:14 +0000

Big business is going along with this because they’re scared they’ll be punished by government if they don’t. They also have their eyes on billions in “green” tax credits and research money. In economics that’s called “rent-seeking.” Shame on governments that offer the bribes and shame on businesses that chase them.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:29:52 +0000

Coke is putting out the impression they are green by forcing suppliers to go green? The best (cheapest) way to limit GHG and associated costs is to have your suppliers limit their GHS. This avenue has the effet of not costing Coke a dime. What a joke. It is genius because they know idiot lemmings will go over the edge. Ditto for Walmart an Unilever.

By: Joe Sadlier

Joe Sadlier — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:27:14 +0000

For those of you who have read my blogs before, this is exactly what I said! I said “This carbon footprint thing is comming!”. If you start working on it, before the government starts to regulate it you might be able to survive. For those companies that want to push it down to their suppliers, they better be ready to pay higher prices for everything from cleaning services to raw material. They will then start to “outsource”.

This is the “global quandry”, if we in the developed countries, start to push costs up, to save the world from global “whatever they are calling it today” , underdeveloped countries and developing countries will by default be cheaper suppliers to “our” customers.

They will then require more energy and electricy to supply the new goods, but since coal and oil are the cheapest forms of energy, they will want to use them. They will become bigger polluters than we are today. Case(s) in point China and India.

So to redirect $$ to developing countries is the best way to insure the worst possible outcome.
And having a world governing body involved just increases the “yick” factor. More corruption, more inefficiency and less real results. Another gonvernmental point to ponder. Ethanol (from corn) was the (governmental) fix for global warming and oil independance. Billions went into new plants and E85 vehicles, but then corn prices went through the roof. Brazil cut down millions of acres of the rainforest to plant corn, people in many poorer countries couldn’t afford to buy corn (a staple of their food stuffs), and come to find out the ethanol uses more energy to produce (carbon footprint) then it saves. GOOD CALL!

Why is it that we (the United States) is one of the only countrys that reduced its carbon footprint, and still we are getting bashed for not doing enough? Lets go to Copenhaugen and cut through all the red tape. Here is the United States and all her wealth, where would you like me to leave the keys?

The whole thing is a shell game. SAVE THE WORLD!! SAVE THE WORLD!! When all they want is our money. Always follow the money trail. See how many people want to sell all that they have and live in grass huts. Just do this with your own money.

All good companies should try to be good citizens and stewarts of this planet. If a company wants to put up windmills, or solar pannels good for them. But let us not dillude ourself’s, if we can see value in being green in hard dollars or in good will, then pass the costs on to our customers and “full speed ahead”. If it is a boost to effiency or for brand loyality it is a good thing, but if we are doing this just to appease the “greens” were domed.

BECAUSE THEY WILL NEVER BE HAPPY TILL WE HAVE NOTHING!