grove06ash’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Ecomagination - Good or Bad?

  Before I respond to this story, I would like to introduce myself and explain the reason why I am blogging on this particular site.  I am a junior at Marygrove College and is currently taking an English class that requires me to focus my attention on one environmental issue, as it relates to my major, Accounting.  The topic I chose was global warming and how U.S. companies are taking initiatives to become environmentally friendly after the Bush Administration had rejected the United Nation's Kyoto Protocol. To narrow my research, I chose to research and analyze how General Electric Company is responding to global warming.  Data obtain from this research will allow me to infer how all U.S. business organizations will perform under mandatory emission reduction programs, or find out that these type of programs are not worthwhile.      

  While researching this topic I came across this blog.  After reading this piece, combined with the information I already knew about GE's Ecomagination strategy, I realized that I had questions regarding the make-up of this strategy. I am in dire need for someone to respond to this message as it would clarify my curiosity of this plan.

  The first question that I have is whether or not GE's Ecomagination is a long-term, lucrative strategy?  In the short-run, I can imagine GE being profitable off cleaner technologies because humanity is desperately seeking solutions that will slow global warming. Considering long-term effects, I doubt that environmentally friendly products will generate much revenue because the complaint in the future would be that the Earth is drastically cooling.  In a book I read called Boiling Point by Ross Gelbspan, mentioned that cleaner technologies could possibly be bad for the environment in the long-run because these products reduce certain pollutants that are needed to help reflect solar energy to outer space.

  Second, in this blog it said that Muckraker pressed Immelt to clarify his stance on a cap-and trade emission program. He responded that the U.S. would apply the concept differently with a floating rather the specific target. My question here is why not have a cap-and-trade program?  I think that this would definitely increase greenhouse gas emissions because there would be a fixed quota. I think this strategy could also be profitable to GE because as the demand for the cleaner technologies increase, many people, especially environmentalist, will support GE because they would know that GE is taking initiatives to create a greener planet.  As a result of the use of GE's products, more emissions would be reduced. GE emission cap would not be met, and consequently it could sell credits to other signatories of the program, which will further boost its bottom-line.  

  I agree with dlong25 when he states that switching from coal to nuclear energy will create other problems. In the past, nuclear energy was deemed ruinous, but now it's favored because it could reduce carbon emissions.  I think that this is ironic...even if it could reduce carbon emissions, it is not wise to use a source that can be immediately destructive if used improperly.  

  Overall, I applaud GE and its efforts of becoming environmentally friendly, but some questions still remain in my mind: Will Ecomagination be effective in regards of having a great impact in reducing the United States' total greenhouse gas emissions? Is it too late to do anything about global warming? Will Ecomagination have an unintend effect of Global cooling?  

  Reponses to these questions will be appreciated :)On GE kicks off ambitious green initiative posted 4 years, 3 months ago 9 Responses