CEOs call for action on emissions and global warming

[Fender]

Maybe these guys aren't so bad after all?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01 ... index.html

I'm sure some people will have a problem with the cap-and-trade mechanism, but at least major industry is getting involved.

[Grudge]

Either hell has just frozen over, or these CEO's are far-sighted enough to see that in the future, it will pay for corporations to act environmentally friendly because the educated middle class (who represent the consumer power) will be wanting to buy environmentally friendly products.

[Foo]

Or someone just figured out a way to make money from it.

[GONNAFISTYA]

Either hell has just frozen over, or these CEO's are far-sighted enough to see that in the future, it will pay for corporations to act environmentally friendly because the educated middle class (who represent the consumer power) will be wanting to buy environmentally friendly products.

Look up "Corporate Citizen".

It is in their interests to present themselves as socially aware....it's how they stay in business.

Whether or not they actually believe it is one thing. Stating it in public usually results in a stock price increase.

Call me cynical but I don't believe they are altruistic. Good news of course...but I doubt it'll actually change much except to appease some political agenda.

[Fender]

Or someone just figured out a way to make money from it.

Like it or not, that's the only thing that's going to save us in the long run.

[Grudge]

Call me cynical but I don't believe they are altruistic. Good news of course...but I doubt it'll actually change much except to appease some political agenda.

Yea, that's where my "hell frozen over" comment came from, I don't believe they're doing this for altruistic motives either.

But anything that would change the current administration's fucking ass-backwards stance on the environment is a good thing.

[plained]

sound like they got in the ground floor of nex gen clean power

or yea its just a real nice thing

[seremtan]

Either hell has just frozen over, or these CEO's are far-sighted enough to see that in the future, it will pay for corporations to act environmentally friendly because the educated middle class (who represent the consumer power) will be wanting to buy environmentally friendly products.

Look up "Corporate Citizen".

It is in their interests to present themselves as socially aware....it's how they stay in business.

Whether or not they actually believe it is one thing. Stating it in public usually results in a stock price increase.

Call me cynical but I don't believe they are altruistic. Good news of course...but I doubt it'll actually change much except to appease some political agenda.

correct. as anyone from milton friedman to noam chomsky who understands how corporations work will tell you, the bottom line is all. CEOs don't have the legal right to be altruistic with other people's (i.e. shareholders') money, so if they're saying this it's because they feel it'll increase their share value

if market forces results in greener business, that's great, but no one should confuse it with noble intentions

[Dr_Watson]

it seems like perhaps some CEOs have enough forethought to recognize they can't sell products to dead people. however, being environmentally friendly may put them at a short-run economic disadvantage. and if the competition is still pumping shit into the air, why disadvantage yourself when the customers will be just as dead regardless? i suppose the only answer to that is legislation to mandate clean practices.

[GONNAFISTYA]

i suppose the only answer to that is legislation to mandate clean practices.

And then we'll get "deregulation" and start the process all over again.

The only way you'll really get the business world to give a shit about pollution is to make it unprofitable. Fines don't do squat.

[Massive Quasars]

Or someone just figured out a way to make money from it.

Like it or not, that's the only thing that's going to save us in the long run.

Indeed.

[Deji]

it seems like perhaps some CEOs have enough forethought to recognize they can't sell products to dead people. however, being environmentally friendly may put them at a short-run economic disadvantage. and if the competition is still pumping shit into the air, why disadvantage yourself when the customers will be just as dead regardless? i suppose the only answer to that is legislation to mandate clean practices.

Actually it's a win-win-win situation. In the long run, people who think that these people are altruistic, will generate more profit either by stock value or products sold, people who think that they aren't still still admit that saving the environment is a good thing, which will generate more profit and in the long run they'll have an increased market share.

[Dr_Watson]

i suppose the only answer to that is legislation to mandate clean practices.

And then we'll get "deregulation" and start the process all over again.

The only way you'll really get the business world to give a shit about pollution is to make it unprofitable. Fines don't do squat.

the only thing that will make green products more profitable than dirty ones is an educated consumer base who make the decision to put more value on clean practices.
given that SUV purchases have been rising again... it doesn't really seem that is much of a viable option.
also, if the main role of government is to protect its citizens, doesn't that protection extend to the environment they live in? or are the turorists the only thing we need the government to worry about?

[day]

looks like a publicity stunt

i don't see a word in there about an actual regulatory or otherwise contractual committment, so i expect this to be more hot air until i am delightfully proven wrong