Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Green GE

Rate this topic


tommyedison

Recommended Posts

GE turns Green

Today it is the global warming liars. Tomorrow it will be the anti-industrialists. I can't believe how short sighted the GE is being. If they give in now, there will be no end to it.

Then again, it is a consequence of their pragmatist mentalities. The refusal to believe that all actions have abstract principles behind them. No matter what comes before them, they'll think it is "practical" to surrender and "impractical" to fight.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GE turns Green

Today it is the global warming liars. Tomorrow it will be the anti-industrialists. I can't believe how short sighted the GE is being. If they give in now, there will be no end to it.

Then again, it is a consequence of their pragmatist mentalities. The refusal to believe that all actions have abstract principles behind them. No matter what comes before them, they'll think it is "practical" to surrender and "impractical" to fight.

The start of it goes something like this.

X person/group raises a ruckus, bothers the company. The company determines (minus any principles) that in this one instance, it would be far less costly to just appease them than to engage in the lengthy court battle that would no doubt ensue. Unfortunately, it is their lack of principles (their so-called 'pragmatism' that is anything but) that becomes their undoing.

Such concessions, like with any group who's tactics mirror that of a bully, only encourage more and more demands at periodical intervals. Before you know it, we have the absurd sight of one of the largest companies on earth leaping forward to appease a tiny group of insane bullies who could never hope to get such measures put in themselves...because that is the corporate culture you have created, one of avoiding conflict with bullies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummmmmmm - did you even read this article? Or did you just read the title? Rather than thinking short-term, GE is actually thinking long-term, if the author has his facts straight.

Do you honestly think that by continuing in the same old line of business that GE would be thinking long-term? That a hundred, or even fifty years from now, we will still be burning fossil fuels as our main source of energy in cars and in our homes and industries? Those petroleum products (dead plant and animal material) took millions of years to accumulate, and we are using them faster than they can be replenished. Current estimates are that demand for fossil fuels will exceed supply by 2039-2050. Earth is a closed system, and we need renewable sources of energy (solar, nuclear, whatever) precisely so that we DON'T wind up in the situation the environmentalists would have us in: living in the veritable stone age.

You see, there's a difference between caving to environmentalist ideology vs. getting ahead of your competitors because you understand science and refusing to stick your head in the sand because you can see what's coming down the road. See the following quotes from the article and don't confuse sacrifice with increased profit margin and innovation.

Of course no amount of sacrifice would make the altruists happy, and there are many company executives who accept the validity of altruism, although they do not practice it perfectly. However, I don't think these particular actions on the part of GE are altruistic. They are selfish, because they want to survive long-term.

"So is Ecomagination just a sales pitch? "It's primarily that," confesses Immelt. "In its essence it's a way to sell more products and services.".... GE can capitalize on the problems of others..."

"For GE the greening of America and the rest of the world is its best chance to raise profit margins--last year it netted $16.6 billion on sales of $152.4 billion--and its stock price, which has stalled in the low 30s over the last three years."

"What emerged was a wish list from customers that included cleaner ways to burn coal and more efficient wastewater treatment systems, as well as nuclear power and hydrogen fuel cells."

"With just two competitors worldwide, he sees GE's nuclear power business, which had about $1 billion in revenue last year, mostly from refueling existing nukes, emerging as number one or two....."Describe to me how it works by 2040 if you don't have new nuclear plants built," says John Rice, the 48-year-old vice chairman, who started out with Immelt in GE's plastics division."

"Another new line of business: water purification, which GE entered a few years ago with several acquisitions. The company expects to sell $2 billion worth of filtration systems, chemicals and services this year, and its engineers are working on new filters that can strip impurities and salt from water more efficiently. A $260 million desalination plant, recently announced, will supply a quarter of the drinking water for the city of Algiers. GE sees mushrooming demand for similar systems in industrializing nations."

"If there's a neglected constituency in Ecomagination, it would be the fanatical wing of American environmentalism..... Immelt deftly sidesteps questions about the cleanup, saying simply that "we're going to live with that agreement." He knows his sales pitch is to a different audience--employees, customers, bureaucrats. On that level Ecomagination makes perfect sense. In a world where fossil fuels still dominate and factories still pollute, somebody's got to sell the tools to clean it all up."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummmmmmm - did you even read this article? Or did you just read the title? Rather than thinking short-term, GE is actually thinking long-term, if the author has his facts straight.

What I'm talking about is that Ge is accepting the no logic of environmentalists and is in fact conceding the battle to the environmentalists.

Read the last quote you posted. A company opposed to the logic of global warming would not say that there is a need to clean up the environment.

Besides coal is going to last for several hundred years and oil for atleast a hundred years.

Edited by tommyedison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But clearly, if you read the article - again, you must read the article :thumbsup: - GE does think these technologies will work. Sometimes business is a gamble. We shall all see in 50 or so years how this plays out. For now, we will have to be patient.

As for environmental disasters, what enviromental 'disasters' were specifically mentioned? Let's see:

1) global warming: Global warming is a fact. The contentious issues are 1) whether it is only temporary and 2) whether it is caused by HUMANS. In any case, I can hardly see the harm in a company wanting to sell more fuel-efficient technology to consumers. The demand is incredible, and it's easy to see why. Gas prices aren't decreasingt. Looking back two years ago I wish I'd bought a hybrid that gets 50mpg than my 35mpg Pontiac. But, that's just me. Why should any company be slave to producing the same old vehicles that burn gasoline when they can make money with innovative technologies? Do you honestly think that there is no money to be made in nuclear-fueled or hydrogen cell-fueled cars? As far as I'm concerned, the people that produce that oil, people who are mostly our enemies, can drink the s***, excuse my French.

2) pollution: pollution is also a fact. And the fact is that there are govt. regulations about pollution because it can be harmful. The fact that there are regulations is beyond the control of GE. Their job is to make $$. But see the other thread on pollution and how this would all work in the ideal capitalist world.... I would wager that if there was LESS government intervention there would be more pullution cleanup because we wouldn't have these arbitrary and senseless standards of cleanliness. Also, a whole new industry of pollution cleanup would appear, as GE is now doing! And life would be great.

Again, I don't deny that many companies accept the validity of altruism. In this case, I think GE actually is looking to save themselves financially. Do they 'stand on principle' and go broke? more importantly, what is the principle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is not whether they're doing this on principle or not - its, what principle are they acting on - altruism or selfishness?

The results, I think, will bear them out. Selfishly persued goals are done with drive, and an eye on a specific goal. If this was just a token tossed out for PR it will result in nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But clearly, if you read the article - again, you must read the article :thumbsup: - GE does think these technologies will work. Sometimes business is a gamble. We shall all see in 50 or so years how this plays out. For now, we will have to be patient.

I have read the article.

What I am opposing is that GE is basically giving in to the environmentalists.

Consider the fact that it is prepared to decrease its emissions by 1% when they would have increased by 40%. This is a clear cave in to pressure from the environmentalists and/or the govt. without a cry of protest.

1) global warming: Global warming is a fact.
No it is still controversial. The average temp of earth from the 19th century to the 21st has been measured to increase by 6 degrees. The margin of error is 7 degrees.

Their job is to make $$.

True enough. One does not do that by accepting that human beings are guilty of polluting the environment. The CEOs sure enough don't believe the rhetoric of global warming. But publicly they are accepting it. This will only encourage the environmental groups further.

Again, I don't deny that many companies accept the validity of altruism. In this case, I think GE actually is looking to save themselves financially. Do they 'stand on principle' and go broke? more importantly, what is the principle?

There is no need for them to not look for alternative courses of action. But they should have atleast voiced their dissent. They seem too happy to comply.

Edited by tommyedison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But see the other thread on pollution and how this would all work in the ideal capitalist world.... I would wager that if there was LESS government intervention there would be more pullution cleanup because we wouldn't have these arbitrary and senseless standards of cleanliness. Also, a whole new industry of pollution cleanup would appear, as GE is now doing! And life would be great.

Huh? Where is any solution given in the pollution thread. I read it (all exited) and found none. <_<

----------------

To add my own 2 cents of wisdom to this thread:

GE does not give in out of altruism. They do so for purely selfish reasons: to make more profit.

But I wonder how this is giving in. They sell products. People buy them. I see no problem.

They just move to a more profitable business sector.

There's nothing wrong with saving energy and keeping the environment clean as long as it happens voluntarily. Let them do it. You end up living in a better environment without having to pay anything and you don't need to feel a tinge of guilt because people cleaned up the environment because they wanted to.

Sounds good to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DuPont suddenly became Gaia's best friend and started really hammering on the ozone layer and the role that R12 (the stuff you have in old style air conditioners) coincidentally at the same time their patent rights expired. They roled out the new "miracle" coolant R134 at the same time.

That really disgusted me. The company used their pull and marketing along with bad science to screw their generic competition and to secure the forced widespread acceptance of R134a as a coolant. No longer could people like myself recharge their a/c's inexpensively. You had to have a special license to buy the stuff. It was easier to buy methamphetamine than r12. Now, when the guy comes out to fix your houses a/c, one of the things they'd do is purge the a/c slightly to check the pressure of the r12 but now if they do that they can go to jail or more likely face some very stiff fines.

This is of course different from GE. Yes, their is more BTU's of energy in coal right here in the US than their is in the oil fields of the middle east. Problem is extracting the energy from coal just isn't there yet and that is why GE is exploring other alternatives. The same is true about methanol and wind power. It's a great idea but it is significantly easier to use oil right now. GE is heging bets and is using their knowledge to try and come up with alternatives that the marketplace itself is demanding. People want to use things other than oil right now. That is why their is such a heavy discussion and demand for hybrid autos and people paying way to much for electricity from companies like Green Mountain.

Mind you, the way GE and even BP is marketing the move isn't that way but a "we want to save the earth because we know we screwed it up in the first place". That ticks me off but from a marketing weasel perspective, I can understand why they do it. It helps keep the heat from the pull peddlers of the environmentalist movement at bay though at the same time they are feeding it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you seen these ads: http://slate.msn.com/id/2119668/

I am reminded of...

"Andrew Stockton had been in the sort of position which most of the business men envied. The rush to convert to coal had descended upon his shoulders like a weight of gold...There were not many dependable foundries left; he had become one of the main pillars supporting the cellars and kitchens of the country. The pillar collapsed without warning. Andrew Stockton announced that he was retiring, closed his plant and vanished."

I'm all for alternative (i.e. better) energy sources, but this seems rather ominous. I'll get behind this campaign when I can be certain we're making forward progress.

Merged from a redundant thread. - Felipe

Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no real problems with this. In fact. I am happy businesses are taking the initiative, rather than blowing them off. Because if they did, those green communists would begin a renewed drive to take over government, only this time having the "uncaring businessmen" as a scapegoat for all their problems.

and I for one, would rather nip it in the bud, before a green bolshevik revolution occurs.

environmental problems are there, but the solution is not political, it's scientific. and the best way to foster a strong scientific community is by free-markets.

So let them push for eco-friendly sources of revenue. they wouldn't be doing it unless it was in their interests, so even if they hide under a facade of altruism, there is still selfish motivations behind it.

caving in to evil? they're looking for new ways to make money. Maybe if they were providing funds to these platforms then yes, I would be skeptical. But come on, at the very least, they are generating good PR So even if it is evil men who are pushing for these initatives, everyone wins when businesses find eco-friendly products. the company who now has a product and a source of revenue the greenies cant complain about, the consumers now have an alternative product that is eco-friendly, and the greens may achieve a short term victory here, but it makes the prospect of a future eco-communist state unlikely, because they loose their scapegoat: uncaring businessmen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: "Global warming is a fact":

No it is still controversial. The average temp of earth from the 19th century to the 21st has been measured to increase by 6 degrees. The margin of error is 7 degrees.

I've never seen those numbers.

The temperature increased from the 19th century to circa 1940 by about 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit (or was it celsius?).

After that there has been no clear increase or decrease in the temperature. It's been a few years since I've looked, but the satellite data from circa 1980 to about 1992 showed no real trend up or down.

The best place to go for info on this is www.sepp.org

Also, try petition project. There is also a video lecture by Dr. Robinson on global warming on the left hand table of contents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The earth goes through natural warm and cold cycles. Even Mars is showing evidence of heating up. The earth has recently just gotten out of a "mini-ice age" and climatologists predict it will return to it's pre-cool period temperatures, the temperatures of the middle ages.

the Earth warming up or cooling down is irrelevent. wether or not humanity has anything to do with it, does.

Hiding it under the facade of altruism is the most dangerous of all to the businessmen, in the long run.

money talks and bullshit walks. So long as their methods remain moral, what they have to say is no more immoral than a sports athlete who thanks God everytime he achieves greatness. Which is to say, is pretty immoral, but largely ignorable in the larger context of achievement.

the fight against irrational environmentalism must be fought on a much grander scale than merely what excuse GE uses to generate good PR.

Edited by the tortured one
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...