Lash said, "Global warming is the most pressing environmental problem humankind has ever faced. I wouldn't push any potential solution off the table, and I think nuclear has to be a part of the carbon-free energy mix.

Is Lash a dupe or is he in the employ of Rove's pro-nuke disinformation campaign.

So many organizations that lobby for green power seem to be nothing more than lobbyists out of work in DC that know all about fundraising through direct mail and are looking for a paycheck.

These washington weasels are dangerous in that they cynically coopt the best intentions of we the people for personal gain.

https:/secure.entango.com/donate/9yUWSisgGVN

Check out Lash's scam.  will you donate to help GE promote nuclear power?  Please?  

Environmental groups deride GE 'ecomagination' program

BY R.J. KELLY Gazette Reporter

Reach Gazette reporter R.J. Kelly at 395-3198 or
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) //= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') output += "&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"; else output += unescape(l[i]); } document.getElementById('eeEncEmail_4l6JJFVKNb').innerHTML = output; //]]> .

A coalition of environmental groups focused on ridding the Hudson and Housatonic rivers of PCBs has taken aim at GE's global "ecomagination" business initiative to market environmentally sensitive technologies.

Scenic Hudson spokesman Rich Schiafo claimed Wednesday that GE has been dragging its feet in fully funding the planned 2006 dredging of the upper Hudson to remove its polychlorinated biphenyls. "It's far from cooperation," Schiafo said. "It's more like procrastination, and certainly lacks ecomagination."

The PCBs, considered a probable cause of cancer and other health problems in humans, wildlife and fish, were discharged from GE capacitor plants in Fort Edward and Hudson Falls into the river for 30 years, ending in 1977 when the practice was banned.

The Hudson dredging and removal project has an estimated price tag of $500 million, but critics
say GE has not committed to paying for it. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ruled in 2002 that GE will participate in the cleanup, but negotiations are still continuing.

"It's ironic that they are part of the industrial legacy that created the problems, Schiafo said, "and now they're making money on the problems they helped to create."

Joining in the criticism were the Sierra Club, Environmental Advocates of New York, Housatonic River Initiative and the Housatonic Environmental Action League.

GE corporate spokesman Peter O'Toole denied Wednesday that the company was the cause of delays during years of discussions with
federal, state and local officials.

O'Toole said GE has "already spent $300 million" on clean-up efforts and related studies on the Hudson PCBs. He said debate had involved
"considerable discussion" among scientists and local residents about whether disturbing the river bottom PCBs by dredging was the right approach. "The science wasn't conclusive," O'Toole said.

On the Housatonic River near a former Pittsfield, Mass., GE transformer and capacity plant, O'Toole said the company has spent $381
million, as of April, for remediation of the first half-mile of the contaminated area. The cost for cleaning another 1 1/2 miles of the
Housatonic is to be shared with the EPA, O'Toole said.

Environmental groups in Massachusetts and Connecticut are also concerned about downstream areas, as well as plans to clean the land
around the former plant.

In a statement, Housatonic River Initiative spokesman Tim Gray called GE's "ecomagination" effort "corporate marketing doublespeak which is
just another attempt to redirect the public's focus from years of despicable PCB pollution that they have yet to adequately remediate."

GE Chairman Jeff Immelt launched the ecomagination initiative Monday during a series of speeches and events in Washington, D.C.

(source: The Gazette)
C A P I T A L   R E G I O N

GE seeks dredge study
Organizations call request a delaying tactic

BY LEE COLEMAN Gazette Reporter

General Electric Co. confirmed Thursday the company recommended that an independent study on the effectiveness of dredging to remove PCBs
from the Hudson River be part of a proposed new federal appropriations bill. The bill - with the attached dredging study request - is currently moving its way through the House. A vote on the bill is expected next week.

Environmental watchdog organizations maintain the GE tactic is just another attempt to delay the environmental dredging of the upper Hudson
to remove 2.65 million cubic yards of PCB-contaminated river sediment between Fort Edward and Troy.

The dredging is scheduled to start in summer 2006. But U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials say design delays make this
goal more "challenging."

"This is just more of the same," said Christian Ballantyne, regional director for the Sierra Club. "We are just troubled that GE and [Rep.
John E.] Sweeney are trying to delay or slow down the cleanup."

Melissa K. Carlson, a spokeswoman for Sweeney, R-Clifton Park, said Thursday "the congressman had no knowledge of the NAS [National Academy of Sciences report] language." "We were just as surprised by it as anyone else was," Carlson said.

Mark L. Behan, a GE spokesman, said General Electric officials recommended to a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee that a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report on removal of PCB-contaminated sediments be updated.
The updated report, which would be started this December and be completed no later than Dec. 1, 2006, would include information on several major environmental dredging projects started in the United States since 2001.

Rep. Charles Taylor, R-N.C., subcommittee chairman, had GE's request for a new NAS study attached to the large federal appropriations bill. "Our view is that more information is better than less information," Behan said. "More updated information is better than outdated
information."

In the years before the EPA issued its 2002 decision that GE should participate in the $500 million dredging of the Hudson, the company
waged an expensive public relations campaign listing reasons why dredging the Hudson to remove the PCBs was not the correct cleanup
remedy.

GE capacitor plants in Fort Edward and Hudson Falls discharged an estimated 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into the Hudson over a 30-year
period that ended in 1977 when the practice was banned by the government. PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls, are described by the EPA as a probable carcinogen and source of other health problems in humans and animals.

Even though Ballantyne of the Sierra Club and Rich Schiafo of Scenic Hudson, another environmental group, say Sweeney's "fingerprints" are all over the language of the federal appropriations bill, his office says this is not true.

However, Sweeney did have language attached to the appropriations bill that directs the EPA to "provide assistance to the maximum extent
possible, including financial and staffing assistance" to the town of Fort Edward, where a 100-acre river sludge processing and dewatering
site will be located along the Champlain Canal.
Both environmental group representatives and GE say that the NAS study itself is not expected to delay the Hudson River dredging project.

"This is an information-gathering process only," Behan said. He said the NAS study, which will look at the cost estimates of environmental dredging as well as remedial alternatives, is a
nationwide study, not just a study of the Hudson River project.

Jeffrey Lieberson, a spokesman for Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, said the language ordering the National Academy of Sciences study was
"snuck into the report" of the appropriations bill. "He's very troubled by it," Lieberson said of Hinchey.

Hinchey has arranged for a discussion of the 2006 fiscal year interior appropriations bill next week on the House floor by himself,
Sweeney and Taylor.  Hinchey will encourage his fellow congressmen to make sure this new
language does not impede the scheduled start of the Hudson River cleanup.

Hinchey is also encouraging his fellow Democrats in the Senate, especially New York's Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, to
ensure the Senate appropriations bill, which is not yet out of committee, includes language urging that the NSA study not impede the
start of the river cleanup.

The appropriations bills would eventually be unified and signed into law by President Bush.

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 :)

Greenwashing at its best. While I applaud GE for actively taking steps to not be the company of yesterday, there is a significant amount of concern for the bottom line here. They know, just like major food companies who bought up all the small organic businesses, that there is a perception among Americans to be leery of large engineering type corporations. Especially ones that dumped over 15 tons of chemical waste into the Hudson bay over the past 60 years. How can they still be serious about "clean coal?"  We've been burning the stuff since King Arthur...I think its time we grow up and move our major energy capacity to something a little more respectable.  

Good babysteps GE, but you're capable (and wealthy enough) to impress the environmental community in so many more ways. Keep tryin'.