Last I checked, the oil companies didn't buy their own products, but I'll blame them if you want.Spark wrote:
This is more along the lines of what I was talking about.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.
And you actually have to be helping the environment in some way.
Carbon credit trading aside, yes it is.
eg.
There are environmental costs associated with veges from the supermarket, right? Food miles being a biggie. The home gardening industry must be profitable, otherwise it wouldn't exist! Why is home gardening "enviromental"? How much fuel is spent transporting a tomato from your garden to your dinner plate?
Also, solar powered battery chargers. Mostly cheaper than chargers which you plug into a power socket, and they have NO ongoing costs (power bills)
eg.
There are environmental costs associated with veges from the supermarket, right? Food miles being a biggie. The home gardening industry must be profitable, otherwise it wouldn't exist! Why is home gardening "enviromental"? How much fuel is spent transporting a tomato from your garden to your dinner plate?
Also, solar powered battery chargers. Mostly cheaper than chargers which you plug into a power socket, and they have NO ongoing costs (power bills)
Last edited by Pubic (2008-01-15 22:09:44)
But something people ALWAYS overlook are the environmental impacts of producing things like batteries for hybrid/electric/fuel cell cars, solar panels, etc. Those are not "low emissions" activities. There is an overall "environmental impact budget" that must be taken into account, but seemingly never is.
As for Pubic's take on profitability...you're talking about reduced costs to the consumer, not profits for the companies that would enable wide-spread consumer-driven environmentalism.
As for Pubic's take on profitability...you're talking about reduced costs to the consumer, not profits for the companies that would enable wide-spread consumer-driven environmentalism.
“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
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Being more efficient and/or cleaner can often be profitable in more ways than just material.
It could be incredibly profitable to politics. Some feel that the Kyoto Protocol (we won't sign it until China does) and global warming in general is a big farce trying to slow India and China's accent to power (the two rapidly industrializing countries would be devastated if they lost their ability to use oil).konfusion wrote:
Well, it would be profitable to politics - no more dependence on the middle east for the USA.
-konfusion
And if you were a pioneer in using Hydrogen as a fuel, you could probably make a pretty nice lump of cash.
Whoever solves Hydrogen fuel station problems as they are now will be so rich it would make Bill Gates' fortune look like bus fare.
Short term: No, not in the least. Especially if you are the only one
Long term: Yes, very. We don't have to fix something that isn't broken.... And today's disregard for the environment must be payed back tenfold if it goe on much longer.
Long term: Yes, very. We don't have to fix something that isn't broken.... And today's disregard for the environment must be payed back tenfold if it goe on much longer.
you know what really grinds my gears? carbon offsets. people who are all on the environmentalist movement think purchasing carbon offsets somehow negates the fact that you are still impacting the environment. i just read the comments from this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/0 … 90032.html
and someone says this gem of stupidity "Ha! Those 5 people had a comfortable flight, but how much would they have to spend on carbon offsets to cancel that flight?" buying carbon offsets doesnt mean that plane still didnt burn all that fuel. i can just imagine all the greedy assholes out there saying "you are not green unless you buy this" so my answer is Yes! environmentalism is extremely profitable.
and someone says this gem of stupidity "Ha! Those 5 people had a comfortable flight, but how much would they have to spend on carbon offsets to cancel that flight?" buying carbon offsets doesnt mean that plane still didnt burn all that fuel. i can just imagine all the greedy assholes out there saying "you are not green unless you buy this" so my answer is Yes! environmentalism is extremely profitable.
QFTATG wrote:
Ask Al Gore.