Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Greening the Corporation

By Ralph Nader, Nader.org. Posted November 22, 2007.


This overall persistence of corporate intransigence needs to be kept in mind as the blizzard of green announcements by companies continues.
Advertisement

The "Business of Green" and "Green is Gold" are among the phrases finding their way onto the nation's business pages and into the advertisements of major corporations.

After years of corporate greenwashing, is this wave of corporate greenmania for real? Is it more than hype when the New York Times marks a recent article with the sidebar "The market tells producers: It's go green or goodbye"?

Well, not if the impetus has to come from stronger regulation or environmentally driven government purchases. Those two pressure points have largely been kept dormant or are de minimis.

When business sees environmental management as saving it money, increasing productivity, becoming more competitive and attracting young talent, the prospect of sustainable policies taking root becomes more likely.

Obviously, it was not always viewed this way by corporate bosses who, not long ago, saw our air, water and soil as their toxic sewers.

There is still a long way to go to "green" the entire supply chain from the mines to the markets.

No corporation illustrates this broad continuum better than the Atlanta-based Interface Corporation -- the country's largest commercial carpet tile manufacturer. In 1994, founder Ray Anderson started his company on its goal as a "restorative enterprise," which he described as zero net pollution and 100% recycling by 2020. The company is 45 percent there, he estimates.

Anderson speaks figures in his 100 plus lectures around the nation and world. His company's use of fossil fuel is down 45 percent, net greenhouse gas production is down 60%, while company sales are up 49 percent. Water use is down by a third in its manufacturing and the filling of landfill with waste is down 80%.

"Sustainability," Anderson told the New York Times, "pays in customer loyalty, employee spent-hard cash," plus 336 million dollars in savings since 1995.

Anderson is unique in that what he and his team have done is not anecdotal, but system wide in scope. The news is replete with one large company achieving this with lighting or that with their transportation. With Interface, ecological efficiency is across the board.

Since even a stodgy company like General Electric is moving quickly into selling "green" technology as the next profit center, why are the aggregate figures on hydro-carbon use, greenhouse gases still increasing? Because there are no national missions to take these successful examples--these best practices--and make them a mandatory floor for all companies.

I refer to mandatory performance standards by the federal government--not specific design standards--backed up by specifications set by Uncle Sam, who is the buyer of so many products we all use, for its departments and agencies. These include vehicles, building construction, paper and many other goods and services that could be purchased only from solid "green companies." (See: Forty Ways to Make Government Purchasing Green by Eleanor J. Lewis and Eric Weltman. Available from the Center for the Study of Responsive Law for $10. Mail orders to PO Box 19367 Washington, D.C. 20036.)

Mandatory federal standards and government purchasing specifications brought the people safer cars, higher recycled paper content and greater fuel efficiency for their vehicles and appliances. The deregulation craze of the past twenty-five years ended most of this forward progress.

Moreover, the retarding corporate powers are still going anti-green. They oppose a carbon tax and long overdue upgrades of fuel efficiency and pollution control standards. They want to build dozens of costly, unnecessary, unsafe atomic power plants with no less than 100% federal government loan guarantees.

This overall persistence of corporate intransigence needs to be kept in mind as the blizzard of green announcements by companies continues.

To keep our demands on industry and commerce to become more efficient, productive and environmentally benign, it is worthwhile to quote a passage drawn from Natural Capitalism, a book co-authored by a physicist, a lawyer and a successful businessman:

"Whether through better design or through new technologies, reducing waste represents a vast business opportunity. The U.S. economy is not even 10% as efficient as the laws of physics allow. Just the energy thrown off as waste heat by U.S. power stations equals the total energy use of Japan. Materials efficiency is even worse."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: green-washing, workplace, economy, environment

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Ralph Nader knows nothing about nuclear power.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 22, 2007 11:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"They want to build dozens of costly, unnecessary, unsafe atomic power plants
with no less than 100% federal government loan guarantees."
Nonsense. Subsidies for nuclear power are needed only because of the paranoid
public demand for extremely excessive safety for nuclear power. The public,
especially in the US, has never heard of natural background radiation, doesn't
know that burning coal puts uranium into the air or cinders, doesn't know that
dental X-rays are radiation, doesn't know that microwaves in their microwave
ovens are radiation, doesn't know that light is radiation, etc. The public,
especially in the US, is generally paranoid of all things nuclear because of coal
industry propaganda and general ignorance of science. See:
http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html
for a list of all the poisons, including uranium, that coal burning puts into the
environment. Most Americans didn't take physics in high school. NMR [Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance] had to be renamed MRI [Magnetic Resonance Imaging] to
get sick people into the scanner. Apparently, the average American doesn't know
that all matter, including people, is made of atoms and that atoms have nuclei.
Many Americans think that there was a nuclear explosion in the Chernobyl
accident. There was no NUCLEAR explosion in the Chernobyl reactor because
that is physically impossible. To lower your electric rates: Convince your
neighbors that nuclear power is the safest and allow the nuclear power plants to
lower safety to a reasonable level. Nuclear power should be much cheaper than
coal. The average coal-fired power plant puts as much radiation into the
environment in about 7 years and 5 months as the Chernobyl accident did. The
difference is that nobody measures the radiation from the coal-fired power plants.
There has been a great deal of progress in reactor design and safety in the western
countries, but there wasn't in the Soviet Union. The reactors at Chernobyl are first
generation and considered primitive by western standards. The US has 2 types of
reactors in which meltdown is physically impossible. In ALL American reactors,
the Chernobyl accident is impossible. We just don't build them that badly.
Subsidies for nuclear power plants are required ONLY because of the probability
of irrational people protesting nuclear power. So-called nuclear "waste" is fuel
that should be reprocessed and put back into reactors. In fact, we have reactor
designs that can run on so-called nuclear "waste," including their own.
Converting from coal to nuclear power is the only way to avoid extinction.
Global warming leads to our extinction due to H2S bubbling out of a warm ocean.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ralph Nader never took thermodynamics
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 22, 2007 11:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Just the energy thrown off as waste heat by U.S. power stations equals the total
energy use of Japan."
True, but that waste heat is not available for our use due to the laws of
thermodynamics. A heat engine of any kind, including all electricity generation
by coal, nuclear, diesel or gasoline, works by taking heat in from a hot source and
rejecting heat to a cold sink. The sink has to be colder than the source. If the two
temperatures are too close together, the engine becomes inefficient and stalls.
40% is very good efficiency, but it means that 60%/40% or 3/2 or 150% as much
energy as the energy converted to electricity is rejected as waste heat. Ralph
Nader does not understand thermodynamics and the author of Natural Capitalism
takes advantage of Ralph Nader's ignorance.

"The U.S. economy is not even 10% as efficient as the laws of physics allow."
And nobody will ever approach 100%. 40% efficiency for a power plant is very
good. Cars are far worse. A great deal of electricity is lost in the transmission
lines. Machines at the using end are less efficient than the power plant. 40%
times 60% times 20% = 4.8% is less than 10% but very good for present
technology. We could improve the efficiency of transmission lines if we had
room temperature superconductors, but we don't. Energy savings will never put
coal fired power plants out of business. Renewable sources are helpful but can't
put coal fired power plants out of business either. Nuclear power plants of 21st
Century design CAN put coal fired power plants out of business by selling
electricity at a lower price. It has happened in France. France is using American
nuclear technology which is now out of date. We could do it here if everybody in
the US understood enough physics to understand that nuclear power is far safer
than coal power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Safety isn't a law of thermodynamics Posted by: eddie torres
Common Dreams
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 24, 2007 12:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
eddie torres, I am a retired impartial federal civil servant. I know a lot about
regulations and implementing them. I know a lot about Safety, Rule of law,
Impartiality, Oversight and Democracy. The problem with democracy is that it
assumes an informed, educated electorate that is able to UNDERSTAND the
issues it is voting on. If you and all Americans understood enough physics, we
would have only nuclear power plants and we would have zero coal fired power
plants. I am trying to educate you. GO TO SCHOOL.
I live on my federal retirement annuity and nothing else. I sent a bill to Hill &
Knowlton once, they never responded.
Law, public input and democratically-elected representatives can do NOTHING
without the laws of NATURE. Public input did indeed have a lot to do with the
past 60 years of reactor safety development in the US. Too bad you never heard
about it. Chernobyl happened because neither public input nor reactor safety
development happened in the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union did not spend
money on safety. The US did. The problem is that we OVERSHOT. American
reactors are TOO safe. It is C O A L fired power plants that give you 100 times as
much radiation. Coal is almost pure carbon, except for the URANIUM,
ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium,
Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium,
Magnesium, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium,
Molybdenum and Zinc that are coal's impurities. As I told you several times, we
could fuel our nuclear plants from the uranium and thorium in the smoke and
cinders from coal fired power plants. Did you forget already?

Safety is guaranteed by laws of physics including to but not limited to the laws of
thermodynamics. There are two types of 21st century reactors that cannot melt
down no matter how badly they are operated.
In the pebble bed reactors, stopping coolant flow removes the space between
fuel pellets. The space between fuel pellets must be filled with moving water.
The water is the moderator to slow down the neutrons so that the reaction can take
place. No coolant flow, no reaction. These pebble bed reactors will never
experience a meltdown. It just can't happen because of laws of nature.
In the recommended and newly invented helium cooled reactor, the core is
made of high temperature materials that simply will not melt if coolant flow
ceases. The core is cooled from a higher temperature by heating the containment
building, which also does not melt. The containment building heats its
surroundings in the case of coolant flow loss. The helium cooled reactor uses
helium as the working fluid to turn a turbine. Helium gas is the ideal fluid to turn
a turbine because it can be made very pure so that the turbine blades will last a
very long time.
Safety is assured in all US built reactors by the containment building, which is a
pressure vessel and which, as in the case of the now obsolete 3 mile island reactor,
can and did contain the overheated core.

As I said, American reactors are now too safe. Nuclear power is overpriced
because of the excessive safety. 20,000 to 30,000 Americans die each year
because of those poisons I listed above that come out of coal fired power plants.
It is C O A L fired power plants that kill 20,000 to 30,000 Americans each year.
Nuclear power plants kill ZERO Americans each year. It is COAL burning that
will make us go extinct in about 200 years if we keep doing it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Common Dreams Posted by: Phr2
The word EXTINCT means:
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 24, 2007 1:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear power is NOT dangerous. Coal is the most dangerous and radioactive.
Nuclear power can save us from extinction. The comparison has to be with
extinction. Do you understand what the word "extinct" means? It means that, if
we keep burning FOSSIL fuels containing CARBON, EVERY PERSON will be
DEAD. THERE WILL BE ZERO SURVIVORS. EXTINCTION means NO
MORE HOMO SAPIENS, EVER. NOT EVEN the worst possible nuclear war,
a "general exchange" between the United States and the old Soviet Union could
achieve the extinction of Homo Sapiens. That would mean exploding 40,000 H
bombs all at once in the old days or maybe only 20,000 H bombs now.

The simultaneous deaths of 6,400,000,000 people would not even be noticeable in
the geologic record. Human population would rebound too fast for the dip to be
noticeable in the rocks. But extinction would clearly be noticed by some future
space alien or future intelligent earth species geologist. He would find no more
humans after the extinction event.

In the second place your paranoid fears of nuclear power are just that, paranoid,
irrational, crazy, the product of mental illness, ignorance and coal industry
propaganda. And yes, I know something about things nuclear. I am a physicist
with experience in the Army's lead lab for nuclear weapons effects. So, do I need
to post 10 more posts to prove it or will you read my posts on past articles before
making a fool of yourself?

Please also read my past posts on the subject of the extinction we are headed for in
something like 200 years if we don't stop burning carbon. And yes, I like wind,
solar, hydro and geothermal energy. Is there a need to repeat once again that they
are inadequate to meet our needs with current technology and current prices?

PS: To be a "fossil" fuel it has to contain fossils if it is a solid. Coal contains
many fossils, mostly of plants. Oil is a liquid, but oil shale should contain fossils.
Uranium is NOT a fossil fuel. There is no guarantee of finding fossils
anywhere near a uranium mine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is "Common Dreams" funded by Old King COAL?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 24, 2007 1:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference: "Web Dragons" by Witten, Gori and Numerico 2007.

The search engines do not understand the web pages they find for you. They are
just machines. They have no idea of whether or not the web pages they find tell
the truth. In the US, we have "freedom of speech," which means that nobody has
to prove that anything is true before publishing it. We also have a coal industry
that has a gross income of $100 BILLION per year. That $100 BILLION per year
could be easily sunk by the nuclear industry unless you can be persuaded that
nuclear power is dangerous. [The truth is that a coal fired power plant puts 100
times as much radiation into your environment as the nuclear power plant. The
truth is also that natural background radiation is 10 times what you get from a coal
fired power plant.] Do the coal companies have an incentive to lead you astray?
Yes. Is $100 BILLION per year enough incentive? Yes. Can the coal industry
afford to hire doctors, economists, environmentalists, website designers, computer
scientists, psychologists, advertising agencies, and lots of other people on $100
BILLION per year? Of course. Can the coal industry afford to set up hundreds
of web pages on hundreds of computers in hundreds of locations and "game" the
search engines on $100 BILLION per year? Yes. And they do.

How hard is it to find the truth on the web? Very hard. Most web sites have a
monetary reason for existing. People who know the truth and are willing to tell
you the truth don't have much economic reason to do so. It is hard to make money
by telling the truth. Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence
or overestimating the gullibility of the average person. So how are you going to
find out the truth for sure? There is only one way. You have to become a
scientist. You will have to spend a minimum of 4 years in college to get the
minimum degree, the B.S. You should really spend more like 15 years and get a
post doctoral degree.

THERE ARE ZERO HUMAN AUTHORITIES.
Scientists do not vote on what is the truth. There is only one vote and Nature
owns it. We find out what Nature's vote is by doing Scientific [public and
replicable] experiments. Scientific [public and replicable] experiments are the
only source of truth. [To be public, it has to be visible to other people in the
room. What goes on inside one person's head isn't public unless it can be seen on
an X-ray or with another instrument.]
Science is a simple faith in Scientific experiments and a simple absolute lack of
faith in everything else. Do not trust any human, not even yourself. Trust only
the experiments that you personally perform. Otherwise, you will be misled.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Just Started Reading This Book,
Posted by: BlackbirdHighway on Nov 24, 2007 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But it looks very promising.

Power To Save The World

Among other things, it covers the way nuclear energy is done in France, which is entirely different than the way it is done in the US. It seems that they have worked out most if not all of the problems.

Producing a single kWh of electricity in the US creates nearly 700 grams of CO2. In France, only about 85 grams. They have a solution for the waste problem as well. The French were right about the WMDs in Iraq, maybe they're right about nuclear power too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An Unreasonable man
Posted by: JerryKann on Dec 17, 2007 1:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ralph Nader is an unreasonable man. And thank God.

"An Unreasonable Man" is the film biography of Nader that is airing from Dec. 18 to 24 on PBS stations around on the country (check your local listings) on the PBS Series "Independent Lens." (See it on Channel 13 in New York this Wed. night, Dec. 19, at 9 PM.) The title of the film is from Bernard Shaw, who said that it's reasonable men who look out at the world, see how they can find their niche among all its shortcomings and problems... Then there is the **un**reasonable man, who insists on adjusting the world to his ideas of justice and right. Therefore, all human progress depends on the unreasonable man.

Just think of all the reasonable men who looked at the Democrats becoming more and more like Republicans for 20 years, watching Clinton bomb Baghdad the day before he was impeached, watched him sign welfare abolition and the anti-labor NAFTA treaty... and all these reasonable men wondered how they could acccommodate themselves to all these atrocities. Then in 2000 comes along an unreasonable man--Nader--who says it's long past time for someone to challenge this system which offers people of good will no acceptable choice. So he offers them a greater good, not a lesser evil.

250,000 registered Democrats voted for George W. Bush in Florida. It's high time the Democrats took responsibility for losing the election of 2000 instead of scapegoating Nader for it. "An Unreasonable Man" presents the evidence and lets the viewer make up her or his own mind on this question.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]