Is environmentalism profitable?

2008-01-15 03:13:32

#1

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7102|Canberra, AUS

FEOS raised an interesting point about the environment.

If it is profitable, then let the market take care of it. If the CBA and profit margins are there, solutions will be developed. However, I would think that if that were the case (as you state), it would already be occurring...but it's not. That leads me to believe that environmentalism is not profitable right now.

I believe that environmentalism is currently very profitable. If you know what you're doing, what your niche is and what technology will be popular now and tomorrow, you can make a fair bit of profit out of it. WHY this isn't occuring is another point of issue that I won't discuss here.

I'll develop tomorrow, for now I'll just let this stew: Is environmentalism profitable?

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-01-15 03:14:56

#2

m3thod: All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz; +2,197|7099|UK

can't you trade carbon or something? The company i work for has a carbon advisory group but i fuck if i know what they really do.

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

2008-01-15 03:17:22

#3

konfusion: mostly afk; +480|6977|CH/BR - in UK

Well, it would be profitable to politics - no more dependence on the middle east for the USA.

-konfusion

2008-01-15 03:17:40

#4

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6927|so randum

m3thod wrote:
can't you trade carbon or something? The company i work for has a carbon advisory group but i fuck if i know what they really do.

Carbon Offsetting?

Ie at some Airports, they work out how much carbon is involved in your flight, then how many trees are needed to absorb all that. Then you "buy" said trees, to offset the damage.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2008-01-15 03:19:09

#5

twiistaaa: Member; +87|7096|mexico

it was probably profitable for al gore.

2008-01-15 03:20:09

#6

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7185|Argentina

Absolutely. One example would be the ecotourism. You preserve the natural environment and protect the ecosystems in order to promote the tourism in those places.

2008-01-15 03:20:24

#7

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6838|'Murka

That's not environmentalism...that's guilt ransom. It does nothing to actually help the environment...it only helps the businesses that sell "carbon offsets" line their pockets.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-01-15 03:24:09

#8

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6927|so randum

sergeriver wrote:
Absolutely. One example would be the ecotourism. You preserve the natural environment and protect the ecosystems in order to promote the tourism in those places.

Ecotourism is good, as long as it's properly managed.

We do a lot of this eco stuff in geography, mostly focusing on Antarctica, Amazonia and African savanna.

Interesting subject.

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2008-01-15 03:26:59

#9

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6838|'Murka

I think in order for environmentalism to be profitable enough to make a difference, it has to be more profitable than many (if not all) of the endeavors that cause the greatest damage to the environment. Otherwise, the repair effort would never get ahead of the damage being done.

Nickel and dime profit is nice, but it won't make a difference in the overall market or environment.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-01-15 03:31:36

#10

B.Schuss: I'm back, baby... ( sort of ); +664|7269|Cologne, Germany

sure it is. a lot of companies are already making profits of environmental technology, for example wind parks, or solar cells.

The thing is, big corporations are lazy scum. That's why the oil producers and car manufacurers will continue to make profit of the old, established, cheap, fossil-fuel-reliant technology as long as it is available, instead of making the switch now.

Let's hope that, when these people realize that there is nothing left to burn, there is still clean air left to breathe, and clean soil to live off.

2008-01-15 03:40:46

#11

oug: Calmer than you are.; +380|6947|Πάϊ

I guess there's an effort to drain what profits are left to be made out of current technologies and then go for the change. Also the workforce has to be prepared to cope with whatever changes will be necessary, and that takes time.

_ƒ³

2008-01-15 03:47:50

#12

Burwhale: Save the BlobFish!; +136|6650|Brisneyland

A lot of this has to do with economies of scale. Since Coal has been around for ages it has become relatively cheap to use. Alternative energy may be more expensive right now, however the more we use it, and the further the technology develops, the cheaper it will get. Jobs will then be needed to run the alternative power plants etc.

Yes I think environmentalism is profitable, there are fund managers that deal only in this sort of thing (shares in green companies), and they make very good returns.

Last edited by Burwhale the Avenger (2008-01-15 03:49:51)

2008-01-15 04:19:37

#13

<BoTM>J_Aero: Qualified Expert; +62|6893|Melbourne - Home of Football

I hope so - I like environmentalism, and learning to live in harmony with nature as a concept, but it seems change is often driven by people's greed: the drive for the almighty dollar. Therefore, environmentalism has to be profitable for it to succeed: you can only rely on people's conscience so much.

One of the biggest problems is what economists call an "externality", (an impact on a third party not involved in a transaction, basically) and concerning the environment and business, one of the biggest externalities has been pollution. Traditionally, a company that pollutes - say pumping harmful gases into the atmosphere, has not faced any charge or sanction for doing so. Now we're at a point that we can recognize that this is harmful, we must take a dual approach: creating incentives for companies to do things in a more eco-friendly way, and punishing those that do not improve their performance.

Yes I believe that environmentalism can be profitable, and the reality is, if we want it to work and live in a more eco-friendly world, then to succeed, it has to be. Hopefully we can instill in future generations the value of the environment independent of dollars.

2008-01-15 04:32:22

#14

PureFodder: Member; +225|6713

The problem with the economics of environmentalism is that the potential costs that doing nothing pose are uncertain. We can't accurately foresee the potentially massive costs of environmental damage. Most companies are focusing on day to day, year to year profitability. A huge potential cost that won't occur for decades is fairly irrelevant to most businesses. Even a far seeing business that decides to help stop it will be able to do little on it's own. Plus spending money now to avoid costs later means it's likely that you'll loose business to a less far seeing business who avoids such costs.

If someone could spin time forward 30-50 years then come back and report, then perhaps businesses could gauge the real future costs and then act accordingly.

Capitalism itself is unlikely to sort the problem out. It'll need the government to bitch-slap the less environmentally friendly companies into doing something about it for the good (and profit) of all.

2008-01-15 10:26:29

#15

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6969|Texas - Bigger than France

Yes it is. The problem I have with it however, is the use of it in capitalism where the benefit is to the company and not for the environment. It also sustaining side markets for certain areas of the country.

2008-01-15 10:29:00

#16

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7071

sergeriver wrote:
Absolutely. One example would be the ecotourism. You preserve the natural environment and protect the ecosystems in order to promote the tourism in those places.

tourism is terrible for protecting sheltered environments.

2008-01-15 10:30:59

#17

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6957|Global Command

Ask Al Gore.

2008-01-15 10:32:56

#18

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6969|Texas - Bigger than France

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
Absolutely. One example would be the ecotourism. You preserve the natural environment and protect the ecosystems in order to promote the tourism in those places.
tourism is terrible for protecting sheltered environments.

well, yes & no. the ideas i've seen proposed in my area have to do with the idea of "people are coming anyway, so lets make some paths, etc so people don't trample everything". Of course the problem then is more people show up then.

2008-01-15 10:37:15

#19

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7071

Pug wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
Absolutely. One example would be the ecotourism. You preserve the natural environment and protect the ecosystems in order to promote the tourism in those places.
tourism is terrible for protecting sheltered environments.
well, yes & no. the ideas i've seen proposed in my area have to do with the idea of "people are coming anyway, so lets make some paths, etc so people don't trample everything". Of course the problem then is more people show up then.

but, creating those paths defeats the purpose of conservation in the first place. Ive read a very good book "Desert Solitaire" by Edward Abbey (im sure yerded has heard of him). I recommend it. This guy could put it in better words than what Im trying to say.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2008-01-15 12:53:48)

2008-01-15 11:00:04

#20

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6969|Texas - Bigger than France

slinger...yeah, I know. my city is on the map for fishing, hunting & birdwatching - we actually are hosting the American Birder's Association meeting next year. the argument, which i disagree with, is "people are going to come anyway, so lets keep the destruction localized by limiting their access to the boardwalks etc. otherwise they'll trample everything". but in truth, there's just more people, and with more people there's a greater chance for these folks to do their own thing anyway...

2008-01-15 12:03:53

#21

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6983

I can't see how something that doesn't involve the production of anything can be that profitable. Having said that our rubbish at work is now collected by a business called 'The Green People' who recycle all of our rubbish. Instead of single bins now we have to place our rubbish in one of three bins located beside each other, paper, plastics and general waste. I say they make a nice bit of cash from the whole process over and above ordinary disposal companies.

2008-01-15 12:06:58

#22

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7185|Argentina

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
Absolutely. One example would be the ecotourism. You preserve the natural environment and protect the ecosystems in order to promote the tourism in those places.
tourism is terrible for protecting sheltered environments.

No, it depends on the way you do things. If you let everyone destroy the environment on their visit, well yes it is terrible. But if you control them it is a great way to protect the environment, because you receive money to preserve those ecosystems.

2008-01-15 12:08:06

#23

Skorpy-chan: Member; +127|6772|Twyford, UK

It's a fad. All fads are, inevitably, profitable. I'm currently working on how to make money out of this 80s retro nostalgia thing.

2008-01-15 13:03:25

#24

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6896

Al Gore's movie made money.

2008-01-15 13:06:02

#25

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7102|Canberra, AUS

B.Schuss wrote:
sure it is. a lot of companies are already making profits of environmental technology, for example wind parks, or solar cells.

The thing is, big corporations are lazy scum. That's why the oil producers and car manufacurers will continue to make profit of the old, established, cheap, fossil-fuel-reliant technology as long as it is available, instead of making the switch now.

Let's hope that, when these people realize that there is nothing left to burn, there is still clean air left to breathe, and clean soil to live off.

This is more along the lines of what I was talking about.

And you actually have to be helping the environment in some way.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

BF2S Forums Is environmentalism profitable?

m3thod wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Pug wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

Board footer