Environmentally Profitable

lemmingEffect writes: "Came across this NYT article about how many companies are finding unexpected cost-savings for using more environmentally-friendly manufacturing processes and materials. Kinda like getting paid to clean your room--sure would have made me happier as a kid. =)"

Comments

Well, duh

[YIAAL]

As long as you don't go beyond what technology can reasonably accomplish, environmentally friendly processes are usually going to be more efficient. And more efficient processes are usually going to be cheaper, at least over the long term.

The problem is when you try to get too far ahead of existing technology. Then you wind up with kludged-together stuff that doesn't work right. A good example is the too-early adoption of electronic engine controls by Detroit in the 1970s. In principle, it was a great idea. In practice, the technology wasn't robust enough yet, and U.S. cars suffered reliability problems for years as a result.

(They're still behind Japanese and German cars, but not by much -- in fact, a crappy Chevy today is considerably more reliable than the "bulletproof" Toyotas of the late '80s.)

Well...

[Sarcasmooo!]

Too bad that, in most cases, companies don't clean themselves up; they convince local government to establish c o r p o r a t e 'wealthfare' programs that force the public's tax money to foot the bill for whatever maintenance and equipment is needed to reach standards set by environmental regulations.

What people ought to realize...

[rneches]

Pollution is waste. Waste is inefficency. Inefficency is lost profit. Ergo, it is cheaper to be cleaner. This applies to everything from engines to PCB manufacturing.

In the late 60's and early 70's, the auto industry tried to prevent or forstall the imposition of pollution controlls by insisting that cleaner engines would be less efficent, and that it would be impossible to actually improve their engine technology. The same year that GM and Ford vehigles took a huge penalty in gas milage and performace because the companies were forced to install catalytic converters, Honda introduced a car that met the pollution restrictions without a converter and with excellent gas mileage and reasonable performace for its displacement. But despite the facts, the result of this public relations temper-tantrum is that ever since, enviornmentalism has been linked with sacrifices in prosperity. This is evident in Bush's energy plan, and the US reluctance to cut CO2 emissions.

It has everything to do with corporate (and occasionally individual) resentment at being told what to do. It has nothing to do with the realities of the industries in question. The association of concervation with decreased prosperity is classic FUD.

It's really sad that this realization is news, but I'm glad a few people are finally waking up to it.

Re:What people ought to realize...

[dragons_flight]

Pollution is waste. Waste is inefficency. Inefficency is lost profit. Ergo, it is cheaper to be cleaner.

Sometimes waste is just waste.

For instance mining, I want the silver and it might turn out to be cheaper to scoop out the ore, remove the silver and dump the rest of the dirt back in the ground.

Or how about processed corn? I buy lots of corn on the cob, do my thing, and end up with bags of corn and lots of cob. What do I do with the cobs? Perhaps they make a good fuel, or can be ground up for animal feed, or maybe I can press them together to make building material. Who knows? But whatever I want to do with them, the public has to be willing to pay me more than the cost to process them - the cost of throwing the away. If I would take a lesser hit by throwing away the cobs then that's what makes good economic sense for me.

Looking at nature, there are lots of niche markets. Plants can store chemical energy efficiently so long as they don't expend too much energy in daily life. Animals by contrast show that for a highly mobile lifestyle it's more efficent to discard lots of waste that is too energy costly to reprocess compared with the abundance of food their mobility gives them access to. By contrast algae, fungus, etc breakdown that waste because they aren't mobile enough to find better resaources for them. Of course some organisms do things the way they do because they've never evolved a better method, but natural selection suggests that their place in nature will be close to the most efficient they can be with what they've got.

Technology makes new uses for things and makes reclaiming raw materials more cost effective, but it doesn't make sense for the producer until it is cost effective. If we don't like pollution then one solution is to charge the polluters for dumping stuff into the environment, because then their costs for disposal may exceed the costs of reclaimation or alternative use. Or we might subsidize other solutions so they become less costly than dumping.

Efficiency can be equivalent to cost effective, but it doesn't have to be in all processes and markets.

Re:What people ought to realize...

[FFFish]

Keeping in mind, of course, that there are short-term cost efficiencies, and long-term cost efficiencies.

Throwing away your corn cobs may be short-term cost effective. In the long term, though (and especially if you're a big corn-cobbing industry) it's going to become costly as landfills become glutted, transport costs rise, etc.

Installing a power plant that runs on cob fuel might be short-term expensive, but perhaps over the long term it would pay for itself several times over.

Short-term pain for long-term gain? Long-term pain for short-term gain?

It's a balancing act. Pros and cons on every issue.

That all expounded on, I'll conclude with my opinion: in the past, and particularly in the recent past, the emphasis has been on very-short-term gain.

Executives are being paid extravagantly for short-term performance, and are thus making the most immediately-profitable, shortest-term, biggest-payback decisions.

This needs to change. Instead of paying them ten million dollars in bonuses for their performance in the immediate past year, delay it until they've proven for a decade or two that their earlier decisions were the best decisions.

We'll end up with financially healthy companies that have high-quality long-term planning, that don't take the easy way out because it's cheapest *right now*, and that will provide jobs for the next generation.

Plus, my portfolio will probably be happier. :)

Re:Not a Favorable Article

[Sarah Thustra]

the new york times is an avowed left-wing rag....
michael is a known greenie tree-hugger
...is it any surprise he would be trying to advance his agenda with favorable articles?

Try this on for size:

The NYT is an avowed big-business-and-corrupt-politics-friendly rag, bought and paid for by advertising dollars, not citizen voices.

So is it any surprise that this article should come out now, now that people are finally starting to freak out about the vast environmental damage done by large corporations run with nothing in mind but their precious, almighty dollar? You mention the hysteria yourself--well, suddenly we're starting to see a rash of media pieces in which the Corporations Aren't The Bad Guys Anymore. No, Really, We're Environmentally Friendly. Now Give Us That Dollar.

The tactic is to keep people from realizing that allowing businesses to get out of the people's control--like we have for the last hundred years--IS the evil, it IS the reason for things like the shitty environment, the unfair economics, even the lack of AIDS medications in poor countries. And it'll only get worse as long as we allow it to go on.

What you're seeing in this article is the scrabbling of the fatcats to make sure that people don't pin them, and their absurd "free trade is free" rhetoric, as the cause of all these awful, pressing problems. This article wasn't advancing the "tree-hugger" agenda, you twerp, though I guess we can't blame you for falling for the angle they obviously wanted you to fall for. No, this piece, and the glut of others like it you'll probably run into, was propping up the big-business agenda--or as they say in Fight Club, "polishing the brass on the Titanic." 'Cause it's all comin' down, baby.

Sara Thustra

"Insustainable" does not mean "can go on until the rich feel they're rich enough".

Re:Not a Favorable Article

[regexp]

'Cause it's all comin' down, baby.

I'll take the tyranny of The New York Times and their corporate fatcat sponsors over your brand of "revolution" anyday, since, even though you didn't mention it, your idea of rule by "citizen voices" is to hand power to exactly those few citizen voices who assent to *your* idea of what is right and just, and to hell with anyone else.

We've already tried it that way a number of times--China under Mao, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. It got pretty ugly, to say the least.

Re:Not a Favorable Article

[regexp]

My point was to bring up examples from history of the terrible consequences of ideologically driven revolutions conducted in the name of "the people," but based on a concept of justice decided on unilaterally by an enlightened few. Railing against The New York Times as a tool of the capitalists, and threatening that "it's all comin' down, baby" is a lot closer to the ideals of Maoist revolutions than to democratic ideals of freedom and participatory government.

If you want to ignore history, that's your prerogative, and you do so at your own peril, but the "troll" label is not supposed to be used to silence opinions you disagree with.