How long is it; 20-30 years; before China has to do anything about the "agreement" with the United States when the United States has to do something immediately? Obama apparently hasn't read "The Art of the Deal".
GO Siemens! Very inspiring. Planning to preferentially select Siemens products next time I need to go shopping.
3
Personally, I'm in favor of global warming and am also looking for ways to profit from climate change and associated alarmism.
2
I can't wait to see what you say when your house in Fairbanks sinks into the melting permafrost.
1
They should lead, warmer weather will increase crop growth and improve human lives more than the opposite. They should lead to a warmer planet, even if we have to move some cities.
1
What planet are you speaking of, Mars? Certainly increased crop growth and improved human lives won't happen on a warmer Earth.
2
Maybe Mr. Kaeser can take some time to convince the American Republican Party, its congress and its candidates for president that global warming is real. Maybe they would listen to someone who heads a big international business. They sure don't listen to popes, presidents and scientists.
7
Haven't you heard? It's called climate change now, not global warming. The planet stopped warming 18 years ago and the name was starting to get embarrassing, almost as bad as the global cooling fiasco in the 1970s.
While this is all wonderful, how many companies are there like Siemens, a 160+ year old $92 Billion+ (per year) company that has a spare $110 M over three years (1/3 of 0.1% of its revenues) to improve efficiency in an eco way.
Any company of any size can increase efficiency and save money in the process. It just takes a few years to see a profit, whereas most companies can't see beyond the next quarterly stock report.
2
In other words, subsidies for corporate giants who will pass on the costs to the consumers and their less connected competitors. Better yet, allow markets (actual costs) dictate, and we will have a lot more natural gas and less coal. While not utopia, India and China as well as the developing world will be FORCED to get off coal. This is preferable to pretend commitments to do so from China, while Obama asks American economy and companies to sacrifice economic growth for essentially zero environmental gain and yet more added costs to American taxpayers and consumers. Like the progressive left, completely upside down, without even the virtue of outcomes that were used to justify the self sacrifice to begin with. Europe is INCREASING coal consumption while America is reducing it, even without EPA restrictions. Its clear the objective is to punish economic growth via environmental justifications, not improving the environment.
1
Capitalism can help fight climate change, if it's not the crony capitalism that allow fossil fuel corporations to by congressional representatives that give it 450 billion in completely unnecessary subsidies and also give it a free pass to pollute our air, land and water for free.
A steadily-increasing carbon pollution fee on all fossil fuels that's returned, 100%, by law, to every American every month would cost consumer and taxpayers nothing while phasing out fossil fuels. Same tax on imports from carbon-polluters would create emissions cuts there while the import "dividend" would create jobs here. Been working as promised in British Columbia for seven years, lowering taxes and energy bills while growing their economy faster than any other Canadian province (The Economist) Projected to create 2.8 million jobs here and increase GDP by $75-80 billion annually. (REMI) See the volunteer Citizens Climate Lobby to more information.
A steadily-increasing carbon pollution fee on all fossil fuels that's returned, 100%, by law, to every American every month would cost consumer and taxpayers nothing while phasing out fossil fuels. Same tax on imports from carbon-polluters would create emissions cuts there while the import "dividend" would create jobs here. Been working as promised in British Columbia for seven years, lowering taxes and energy bills while growing their economy faster than any other Canadian province (The Economist) Projected to create 2.8 million jobs here and increase GDP by $75-80 billion annually. (REMI) See the volunteer Citizens Climate Lobby to more information.
1
Generally, when you tax yourself $1 to pay yourself $1, nothing is gained.
1
THE BOTTOM LINE is that becoming carbon neutral is ethical, desirable and profitable. Time was when government would encourage investment in essential projects such as science and basic research and development. But the so-called "free market" forces have made quick profits for the 1% and the throwaway status of the 99% not only possible, but preferred. The priorities must be reversed. President Obama needs to declare carbon neutrality as central to national security. Congress needs to introduce a tax on carbon that rewards energy sustainability. Tax cuts must be diverted from the 1% to those pursuing carbon neutral status. We of the 99% have a right to self-determination, meaning that we need to be able to influence events so that our lives and those of future generations will be safe and clean because of the fundamental changes we make now.
1
Ok then, break down 110 million by three years and see what it comes to in a corporation raking in billions of dollars globally per year. The sum stated here is no kind of serious regarding climate change, probably less or equal to the amount a CEO of Siemens spends redecorating a kitchen and maybe a bath, in one of multiple homes throughout the world.
Solar panels to cut by eighty percent is decent, as is building light-rail vehicles and Amtrak locomotives, but reduction overall, world wide, by only 20 percent at this late date in climate change, when considering money that comes into this corporation. is simply public relations propaganda for the masses.
Solar panels to cut by eighty percent is decent, as is building light-rail vehicles and Amtrak locomotives, but reduction overall, world wide, by only 20 percent at this late date in climate change, when considering money that comes into this corporation. is simply public relations propaganda for the masses.
1
Siemens deserves credit for what it is doing to reduce its carbon footprint. It doesn't matter why they are doing it. The problem in the US is that the carbon fuel industries make a lot of money and they have bought the Republican Party and a few Democrats, and misled many Republicans and a few Democrats into thinking that climate change is just made up by liberals. The carbon industries are doing what the tobacco industry did in the '50's and '60's, spreading misinformation to try to protect their huge profits. Republican politicians say they are not scientists when asked about climate change, or deny that anything can be done about it without ruining the economy. If business can show that it is profitable to cut their carbon footprint, other companies will probably follow, and progress will be made. At the same time, government needs to be at the forefront of the battle, doing what it can even as the Republicans try to stop it.
2
110 million to overhaul all of Siemens' operations over five years sounds pretty darn cheap. I wonder if there's a translation error involving millions and Milliarden?
1
I, too, applaud the efforts. Yes, this sounds very corporate-speak. But as others mentioned, hopefully, it's one corporation speaking to others who might listen. This is how change happens. And I don't think it's just for the money or not directly--this should also be good for attracting and hiring the best and the brightest, as their lives (at least lifestyles) and the lives of their families are at stake. Many millennials are very aware and concerned about the issue of climate change.
I thought it a little ironic that this editorial was across the page from the headline that VW has intentionally developed means to cheat regualations in 11 MILLION of its vehicles.
Capitalism won't and can't address climate change because it's goals are rarely moral. Modern capitalism always seeks the quickest short-term gain, whereas ecological thinking is long-term. Capitalism is willing to sacrifice our planet and our long-term well-being for profit. The evidence of this is everywhere and self-evident.
Capitalism won't and can't address climate change because it's goals are rarely moral. Modern capitalism always seeks the quickest short-term gain, whereas ecological thinking is long-term. Capitalism is willing to sacrifice our planet and our long-term well-being for profit. The evidence of this is everywhere and self-evident.
2
Siemens is practicing capitalism at a higher level than its competitors when green investments give them a better return on their expenditures. Every engineer, MBA and marketer graduating today knows enough to look for companies that think like this. Every consumer can be shown how wasted affects prices in the store and at the pump. And every company that declines to take part in the hard market tests of saving energy has a target painted on it.
If Joe Kaeser wants to tout his efforts, more power to him.
If Joe Kaeser wants to tout his efforts, more power to him.
2
Siemens - the poster child for corporate social responsibility.
Just google "Siemens Integrity Project" to learn more. The sordid tale of how a $100 million fine for corruption was turned into a PR windfall - providing grants to anti-corruption organizations around the world. Managed by Siemens!
Just google "Siemens Integrity Project" to learn more. The sordid tale of how a $100 million fine for corruption was turned into a PR windfall - providing grants to anti-corruption organizations around the world. Managed by Siemens!
1
I think its great that a highly profitable global giant is taking a tiny fraction of it's profits and investing in reduced carbon emissions. When my tiny, local company was forced to move out of the location we occupied for 25 years we bought a 13,000 square foot building, cleaned it up, installed radiant heat with a high efficiency boiler, rebuilt existing lights with high efficiency ballasts and installed storm windows in our plant. All of that paid for out of a mortgage and savings that took decades for my wife and I to build. We looked into programs for energy efficiency grants and low interest loans; none were available after cuts by Governor Christie. We could cover our wide open roof with solar panels and produce all the electricity our 15 person woodworking company consumes, but the out of pocket cost of a new roof and the solar system are out of reach. We were forced out of our old location in part because a very profitable development company got a 30 year tax abatement to build market rate apartments in place of a 19th century factory that served as a small business incubator. The grants and loans for small companies like ours to join Siemens in pursuit of energy efficiency were unavailable then and remain inadequate today because leaders like Christie give billions in tax relief to companies more like Siemens than ours. With direct grants and affordable loans small companies like ours can join the fight. We all need to rethink our strategy going forward.
11
In addition, we will focus on our company fleet of about 45,000 vehicles, which produce roughly 300,000 metric tons of carbon emissions per year. In Germany and elsewhere, we have already lowered emissions by purchasing more fuel-efficient cars for our employees and service teams. Now we’ll do this on a global scale.
I wonder if those fuel efficient cars they bought include Volkswagen diesels.
I wonder if those fuel efficient cars they bought include Volkswagen diesels.
More corporate public relations. Stop growth. Period. Techno-industrial capitalism cannot and will not be part of the answer. It is the problem.
Renewables have turned the corner in terms of being cost competitive with other sources of energy. Solar panels are now a profitable investment, especially for local power supplies, given the 50% efficiency of the current electrical transmission grid in America where half the energy is lost between generating facilities and the consumer. We have reached a point where fiduciary interest demands investment in energy efficiency and in renewables to maximize corporate profits, even without factoring in the loss of business opportunity resulting from global climate change. Corporations that fail to make these investments should be considered bad long term investments who are just milking their present profit streams for short term gain.
1
I'm always surprised that I see no mention of MacArthur Genius Award-winner Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute (rmi.org) in these discussions. For decades they've led the way in developing free-market solutions that enable corporations to profit from resource efficiency. Among many other things, they developed the hybrid car concept and a Pentagon-funded peer-reviewed plan for getting off oil.
2
Mr. Kaeser should be congratulated on his efforts to address the impact of climate change by providing bold leadership at Siemens to contain carbon emissions from his company’s operations. He makes the important point that it is not only prudent and necessary to take actions but such actions contribute to profitability. If only other major US companies and their CEOs were this bold and practical in addressing and combating the carbon emissions issue! For too long, corporations have used our environment to dump billions of tons of toxic and harmful gases and chemicals.
This is wonderful news. More companies should do this because of all the obvious benefits: good public relations, attract talented employees, save on energy bills, and attract new business.
It's certainly encouraging to see a multinational conglomerate committing to a carbon-neutral goal. One thing to consider here, however, is the business that Siemens is in to begin with.
It takes vast amounts of energy to run their products, so imagine a world where those products (such as mass transit locomotives) are then also powered by carbon-neutral energy... then we can truly say we are making progress. When entire states, countries, energy providers, etc can all committ to a carbon-neutral plan, we can know that the products this company is manufacturing actually end up helping to reduce carbon during their lifespans.
As it stands right now, it's a great start knowing the Amtrak train you ride in was manufactured in an ethical and sustainable manner; but that all loses its magical sound when we know the vast amounts of energy being used to move the train are all being generated by burning coal, natural gas and oil.
It takes vast amounts of energy to run their products, so imagine a world where those products (such as mass transit locomotives) are then also powered by carbon-neutral energy... then we can truly say we are making progress. When entire states, countries, energy providers, etc can all committ to a carbon-neutral plan, we can know that the products this company is manufacturing actually end up helping to reduce carbon during their lifespans.
As it stands right now, it's a great start knowing the Amtrak train you ride in was manufactured in an ethical and sustainable manner; but that all loses its magical sound when we know the vast amounts of energy being used to move the train are all being generated by burning coal, natural gas and oil.
3
we will purchase electricity from renewable sources like wind parks and “carbon credits” from credible organizations working to reduce carbon around the world,
-----------------------
It seems awfully profitable to those "credible organizations"
-----------------------
It seems awfully profitable to those "credible organizations"
1
Of course this is good for business. Siemens produces wind turbines and has benefitted immensely from governmental subsidies for wind power. Not to mention how their light rail systems are also dependent on government subsidies.
If you love crony capitalism, you'll love Siemens.
If you love crony capitalism, you'll love Siemens.
1
If we must live with crony capitalism (and there is no doubt--we must), I'll take light rail systems over mountaintop removal, drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic, and subsidized overproduction of corn and soy every time.
Siemens is a progressive LARGE company, and there isn't an American company that quite compares in toto. It competes with GE across many of GE's major electrical energy production and transmission business units, including wind-turbines. (Vestas, GE, and Siemens are the top 3 world manufacturers of wind turbines) It also is a manufacturer of large industrial mining and construction equipment.
But comparing it to GE ..,. obvious that these companies see the future -- heavily invested and advantaged by driving technology forward to be more efficient, more renewable, take less resources.
Our problem today isn't the companies like Siemens or GE, or their leaders. Our problem is the companies like Massey Energy ... and Donald Blankenship.
And sadly our problem is companies that seemed to be doing good things, and are discovered to have been engaged in great cheats or cover-ups or frauds.
But comparing it to GE ..,. obvious that these companies see the future -- heavily invested and advantaged by driving technology forward to be more efficient, more renewable, take less resources.
Our problem today isn't the companies like Siemens or GE, or their leaders. Our problem is the companies like Massey Energy ... and Donald Blankenship.
And sadly our problem is companies that seemed to be doing good things, and are discovered to have been engaged in great cheats or cover-ups or frauds.
I believe many companies will aid in this fight. It is the coal, gas, oil industry that will fight it to their dying breaths. They still get huge subsidies from our government which should stop now. They have huge profits and can continue to fight against the people trying to do something helpful.
2
Siemens is an infrastructure specialist, a great place to start the climate process, accolades to this effort for sure. I wonder if in their dominant environmental controls business, they have a major influence in indicating to their customers their carbon footprint. Siemens could, in a heartbeat, upload the critical carbon data and offer up a solutions matrix for reducing it in plants worldwide. INternally, this is about making efficient decisions. Externally, it would be a major game changer.
1
I hope Seimen follows through on their stated efforts.
Thoughts:
1. This feels like a PR release from Siemens in the Opinion Page, really an ad, and therefor no balanced voice to validate the content--NYT is providing a CEO with valuable OP-ED real estate to recognize himself and his company for supposedly being a good corporate citizens seems misplaced (regardless of the opinion).
2. HEADLLINE: Industry Can Lead on Climate Change seems inaccurate as well...industry hasn't led, most industries battle progress in environmental and climate change areas--and even Seimens claims to of improvement have come slow and late. 20 years of science, legislations, and people movement have lead us to a point where Seimen can congratulate itself.
This op-ed, perhaps well intended, but seems misplaced and misleading.
Thoughts:
1. This feels like a PR release from Siemens in the Opinion Page, really an ad, and therefor no balanced voice to validate the content--NYT is providing a CEO with valuable OP-ED real estate to recognize himself and his company for supposedly being a good corporate citizens seems misplaced (regardless of the opinion).
2. HEADLLINE: Industry Can Lead on Climate Change seems inaccurate as well...industry hasn't led, most industries battle progress in environmental and climate change areas--and even Seimens claims to of improvement have come slow and late. 20 years of science, legislations, and people movement have lead us to a point where Seimen can congratulate itself.
This op-ed, perhaps well intended, but seems misplaced and misleading.
2
I've been saying this for years. Yes, they brought it about, but they don't need to wait for Congress to argue for 5 or 10 years before they act. They don't need funding from Congress. It doesn't take a genius to realize if you don't have a habitable planet you won't have a profitable business. A third grader could figure that one out.
That said, moral, ethical and scientific underpinnings are much deeper, and help change consumer's mindsets. Heck, maybe we can stop being such avid consumers too. But for those whose only concern is money, I say, sustainability rules!
That said, moral, ethical and scientific underpinnings are much deeper, and help change consumer's mindsets. Heck, maybe we can stop being such avid consumers too. But for those whose only concern is money, I say, sustainability rules!
7
That the Siemens CEO is directly behind this effort is powerful. More powerful yet would be that the company contract a yearly, publically available, totally independent, unbiased audit of the company’s progress toward this goal. I am just not willing, as reinforced by the current VW debacle, to take this type of corporate proclamation as anything but greenwashing until it has been verified by independent auditing. Anything else is foolish.
I’m not a Reagan fan, but his use of the Russian axiom “trust, but verify” ("doveryai no proveryai" ) admonition is called for with this type of corporate proclamation—meaning the corporate world is just about as trustworthy as the Russian government.
I’m from Missouri on this one—“Show Me”.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
I’m not a Reagan fan, but his use of the Russian axiom “trust, but verify” ("doveryai no proveryai" ) admonition is called for with this type of corporate proclamation—meaning the corporate world is just about as trustworthy as the Russian government.
I’m from Missouri on this one—“Show Me”.
Michael Bain
Glorieta, New Mexico
9
While I laud what sounds like a corporate commitment to doing the right thing, the fact that this op ed on was published on the same day we learned that Volkswagen's epic lie about its actions to improve the environment was global in scope brings a Ronald Reagan saying to mind: "Trust, but verify.'
3
Funny that one huge German company is touting its "green" policies just when another huge German company is being exposed for fraudulently selling "green" cars. Easy to pretend to be green.
2
Hooray! A company going out of its way to help the environment. Will it lead to profit also? Yes. Terrific! The earth needs more like you Siemens.
3
Am sharing this article with a local friend, who is working for Siemans, a company for which he can be proud.
1
So many American corporations are still denying climate change. Siemens should be our model.
7
Congratulations to Siemens for not joining in the Koch brothers/Tea Party disinformation campaign that climate change has not been established by science. It has been and if corporations come to the realization that their bottom line can be improved by doing the right thing their motivation is irrelevant.
11
"Whoever is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone..."
Let's applaud Siemans. Nations, companies, individuals can all do better. People who set a goal, make a commitment and declare it to millions deserve respect and a chance to succeed. Progress isn't perfect but we all know the direction we need to go and need leaders like Siemens to help get everyone moving the right direction. Once we're all headed that way the collective efforts will only improve.
Let's applaud Siemans. Nations, companies, individuals can all do better. People who set a goal, make a commitment and declare it to millions deserve respect and a chance to succeed. Progress isn't perfect but we all know the direction we need to go and need leaders like Siemens to help get everyone moving the right direction. Once we're all headed that way the collective efforts will only improve.
4
Mr. Kaeser wrote a wonderful letter that spells out how energy efficiency and use of renewable energy can SAVE MONEY FOR COMPANIES!!!! This is consistent with ever so much data from other companies and from the energy information administration (EIA) of the United States. We all know that California and the northeast have gone bananas with programs for energy efficiency and use of renewable energy. However, how many people know that people in California only pay 81% as much per capita per year for electricity as I do in my home state of Missouri (Missouri has done relatively little to increase use of renewable energy), while those in New York state (a part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or RGGI) pay only 76% as much for electricity as I do in Missouri http://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/?sid=CA#series/225? Indeed, New York ranks last for total electricity expenditures per capita for the United States. The reason for lower costs is that energy efficiency programs have markedly reduced the amount of electricity used in California and New York, which overcomes the modest increase in the cost of electricity per kilowatt-hour. I am tired of hearing that increasing our use of renewable energy will "crush" our economy, when in fact we have data in front of our own eyes that states that have pushed renewable energy (California, New York) are doing just fine. I congratulate Mr. Kaeser, and promise that the next MRI machine that I buy will be from Siemens!
6
While personal and corporate commitment to lowering their carbon footprint is to be applauded wholeheartedly and with profound gratitude, it is not enough.
So long as there is no price for generating carbon pollution, it is not 'good business' to lower emissions, at least over the short and medium terms.
The same holds true for all other forms of pollution as well, the one's we haven't gotten around to measuring and apprehending just quite yet, because they don't have the convenience of ubiquity and global consequence as damage to the atmosphere.
Our economy, and the study of economics, is blind to environmental degradation, referred to as 'externalities'.
Changing this mindset is the most important idea in the world.
So long as there is no price for generating carbon pollution, it is not 'good business' to lower emissions, at least over the short and medium terms.
The same holds true for all other forms of pollution as well, the one's we haven't gotten around to measuring and apprehending just quite yet, because they don't have the convenience of ubiquity and global consequence as damage to the atmosphere.
Our economy, and the study of economics, is blind to environmental degradation, referred to as 'externalities'.
Changing this mindset is the most important idea in the world.
3
It's good business over the short-term, because using energy more efficiently saves money.
But, yes, a carbon tax is needed to get to the full CO2 reductions necessary to halt climate change.
But, yes, a carbon tax is needed to get to the full CO2 reductions necessary to halt climate change.
1
A nice thought... but there is a faster and better way to cut carbon emissions... REDUCE! We Americans have a carbon footprint that is 10 times the global average and 2 times the European average. We gobble up emission-causing things like children eating candy on Halloween. We can take less flights, we cna eat less meat, we can carpool sometimes.... These are all things we can do NOW. Each day, 100 million drivers sit alone in their cars while going to work. If for one day a week these folks would carpool, thats a 20% reduction! TWENTY PERCENT!!!! And yet, no leader in this nation will advocate for changing our behavior. It's the "diet soda" mentality. Unfortunately, waiting for new technology that is carbon neutral it will in the meantime cause so much more damage.
4
Perhaps if it is so profitable, you might remind your lobbyists in Washington to support environmentally friendly policies and instruct your Super PAC chums to buy up some politicians that will act according to new instructions.
Given the state of US politics, perhaps a PAC investment of a mere couple of billion this election cycle will suit.
Given the state of US politics, perhaps a PAC investment of a mere couple of billion this election cycle will suit.
1
Improving energy efficiency across the board is a great thing, and makes simple business/economic sense. As for the other claims and goals...I'd like to see the fine print.
A plant in Sacramento that supplies 80% of it's electricity from solar panels?? Does it run at night? In the winter? Just what are its energy needs? Sounds great, but I am very dubious of such claims based on past research experience.
Love to see a NYTimes Retro Report on this in ten years.
A plant in Sacramento that supplies 80% of it's electricity from solar panels?? Does it run at night? In the winter? Just what are its energy needs? Sounds great, but I am very dubious of such claims based on past research experience.
Love to see a NYTimes Retro Report on this in ten years.
2
thank god for big corporations. to save us. from the disaster they brought about in the first place.
2
"Industry Can Lead on Climate Change"
Yawn. This is just wrong from the title beginning. Green, renewable energy is a necessity, not a sufficiency. As long as the motivation for participating in economic transactions is profit-motivated, the current economic system will continue on a direct, unsustainable path to making the planet uninhabitable for future civilizations. As it has to date, every new efficiency will be exploited for further business profit opportunities and the future growth will outstrip the efficiency produced. Ex. Refrigerators. Much more efficient. Yet growth and many more refrigerators now use more energy than before.
Growth must stop. Capitalism requires growth. Can you complete the syllogism?
Here's a primer: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21060-green-capitalism-the-god-that-f...
Consider especially the case of Ray Anderson and carpet manufacturer Interface to get an idea of the magnitude of the problem.
Yawn. This is just wrong from the title beginning. Green, renewable energy is a necessity, not a sufficiency. As long as the motivation for participating in economic transactions is profit-motivated, the current economic system will continue on a direct, unsustainable path to making the planet uninhabitable for future civilizations. As it has to date, every new efficiency will be exploited for further business profit opportunities and the future growth will outstrip the efficiency produced. Ex. Refrigerators. Much more efficient. Yet growth and many more refrigerators now use more energy than before.
Growth must stop. Capitalism requires growth. Can you complete the syllogism?
Here's a primer: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21060-green-capitalism-the-god-that-f...
Consider especially the case of Ray Anderson and carpet manufacturer Interface to get an idea of the magnitude of the problem.
1
Compare this, "longer-term view when it comes to investment decisions," to the "war on coal crowd." It's great P.R. for the company, too!
If Walmart, PepsiCo, UPS and now Siemans are finding ways to do well by doing good, that is fine with me. We may hope that their hearts are pure and their motivations are altruistic, but in the long run we need more companies cutting their carbon footprints. We need more countries and more people getting serious about reducing our collective greenhouse gas emissions. Time is running out, and I do not have patience with people who are always cynical about the motivations of others. Let's get on with it.
5
If such things follow the usual pattern, this site will soon be flooded with denialists claiming all sorts of nonsense.
The denialists come in several categories:
A) All the intensive science indicating man-made climate change is bogus;
B) Climate change is real, but humans have nothing to do with it;
C) Climate change is real but it will cost too much to prevent or even slow down;
D) Climate change is real, but nothing can be done about it now;
E) Because Al Gore.
Denialists use floating charts (no context provided); links to other non-scientists who are more polemicists than concerned citizens; links to out and out crackpots (one is a message therapist, another leading voice is a lawyer with ties to Big Oil); character assassination (the campaign against leading scientists such as James Hansen is particularly vile.
The denialists are organized, though they will deny it.
The denialists come in several categories:
A) All the intensive science indicating man-made climate change is bogus;
B) Climate change is real, but humans have nothing to do with it;
C) Climate change is real but it will cost too much to prevent or even slow down;
D) Climate change is real, but nothing can be done about it now;
E) Because Al Gore.
Denialists use floating charts (no context provided); links to other non-scientists who are more polemicists than concerned citizens; links to out and out crackpots (one is a message therapist, another leading voice is a lawyer with ties to Big Oil); character assassination (the campaign against leading scientists such as James Hansen is particularly vile.
The denialists are organized, though they will deny it.
2
A wonderful breath of fresh air from a Corporation no less. Thanks for sharing Siemen's dedication to combating climate change and hopefully the public attention will persuade investors in put their money where their political mouth is by engaging in a wholesale disinvestment of dirty energy like fossil fuels, coal, fracking technologies and nuclear, and reinvest in green energy Companies like solar and global manufacturing companies that accentuate clean energy values. Many governmental entities are switching from traditional energy sources like electricity and gas to solar including entire school district thus saving taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. The government provides tax deductions for solar power users which ultimately save homeowners thousands per year depending on what area of the country they live in. This is real science which is can't be disputed by political ideology. Green technology is mankind's only hope to combat climate change and ensure a long life for our children and our children's children. Time for all Corporations as well as government & individuals to get on board with the program & vote with their pocketbooks as well as in the polls for leaders of commerce and government who offer innovative solutions to the environmental destruction that we're currently facing across the globe.
1
Do we should trust Siemens to "Do the Right Thing", just like Volkswagen?
According to calculations, if all the known carbon reserves are utilized, it will raise the temperature of the Earth enough to melt ALL of the Antarctic Ice Shelf.
Of course, no one can trust the scientists who do such calculations and make such prediction. Scientists are all frauds, liars, communists, atheists and probably even communists...just like the Pope.
And the best way to solve any difficult problem is to deny that a problem exists.
Problem solved.
I'm glad I will be gone by the time "Industry" leads the human race to its destruction.
And I wouldn't trust Siemens farther than I can throw a Rolls Royce airplane engine.
According to calculations, if all the known carbon reserves are utilized, it will raise the temperature of the Earth enough to melt ALL of the Antarctic Ice Shelf.
Of course, no one can trust the scientists who do such calculations and make such prediction. Scientists are all frauds, liars, communists, atheists and probably even communists...just like the Pope.
And the best way to solve any difficult problem is to deny that a problem exists.
Problem solved.
I'm glad I will be gone by the time "Industry" leads the human race to its destruction.
And I wouldn't trust Siemens farther than I can throw a Rolls Royce airplane engine.
2
Industry has suppressed climate change science for decades. It still does:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warmin...
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warmin...
2
When I saw the headline "Industry Can Lead on Climate Change," I was hoping the author was the CEO of a major oil company. I'm very skeptical that we're going to get control over the harm we've done to the environment if we only make changes in the consumption of energy. I think we need a transformation in how we harvest energy from nature as well.
But the really hopeful thing about this Op-Ed is that, as major manufacturers like Siemens change their energy use, they effectively put pressure on the oil companies to find better ways to make a profit as well. When Siemens can produce locomotives by relying 80% on THEIR OWN solar power, this represents a big market loss for the oil company that would otherwise have provided that power.
I have no idea how oil companies will react to this market pressure, and for now there are probably too few companies like Siemens to force their hand. But if I were in charge of ExxonMobil, I would be looking for a way to jump ahead of the curve technologically so I could tell companies like Siemens "don't worry about investing all that time and money into generating your own energy; we can provide you with cleaner energy at a lower cost!"
But the really hopeful thing about this Op-Ed is that, as major manufacturers like Siemens change their energy use, they effectively put pressure on the oil companies to find better ways to make a profit as well. When Siemens can produce locomotives by relying 80% on THEIR OWN solar power, this represents a big market loss for the oil company that would otherwise have provided that power.
I have no idea how oil companies will react to this market pressure, and for now there are probably too few companies like Siemens to force their hand. But if I were in charge of ExxonMobil, I would be looking for a way to jump ahead of the curve technologically so I could tell companies like Siemens "don't worry about investing all that time and money into generating your own energy; we can provide you with cleaner energy at a lower cost!"
3
Centralized power supplies and distribution grids are obsolete and so called smart grids won't fix the efficiency problem. Local power supplies for major office buildings and factory complexes is the inevitable future direction with solar panels, fuel cells and storage nodes for peak and after hours operations.
Thanks to Siemens for making these efforts, but they need to go to the next level. Lowering energy costs in order to build products that produce emissions obviously produces mixed results.
Siemens is financially strong enough and certainly qualified to take key technologies such as solar, storage and energy management software to the next level. We should not have to depend on startups here. When Siemens and similar companies make the decision to abandon all fossil fuel emitting technologies we will begin to see serious change.
Siemens is financially strong enough and certainly qualified to take key technologies such as solar, storage and energy management software to the next level. We should not have to depend on startups here. When Siemens and similar companies make the decision to abandon all fossil fuel emitting technologies we will begin to see serious change.
2
The BIG corporate whitewashing begins. Before believing anything we hear from corporate spokespeople, Wall Street, BIG advertising agencies or their political operatives we must do some research. Siemens is one of the worst multi-national-corporate offenders. See my earlier post.
7
Exactly the right sentiment and the actions should be applauded. Contrary to what another commenter indicated with derision, that the principle motivation is monetary is irrelevant. The important point is that the company is taking action. The science behind climate change is simple and clear, add more heat/energy trapping material to the system, the system retains more heat/energy. The outcomes are most assuredly neither simple nor clear, and are almost certainly going to be much worse than our species is willing to recognize. Bottom line, we have 2 choices: take strong action based on the science we have, or continue to allow the fossil fuel industry to have sway for the sake of short term gains and short term worship of the status quo. If we shift to renewable sources, greatly improve efficiency, move quickly away from fossil fuels, and improve technologies to capture existing CO2 (they exist-really), we have a chance to maintain the planet's ecosystem in a condition that has allowed humanity to thrive. And, if 99% of the world's scientists are entirely wrong about climate change - what's the worst we've done - moved our species forward into a sustainable, modern, cleaner world?
35
I have always believed that doing the right thing could be profitable, as well as ethical. Why not?
1
Why should we believe you, Mr. Kaeser? According to Wikipedia, "Siemens AG (German pronunciation: [ˈziːmɛns]) is a German multinational conglomerate company headquartered in Berlin and Munich.
In January 2007 Siemens was fined €396 million by the European Commission for price fixing in EU electricity markets through a cartel involving 11 companies, including ABB, Alstom, Fuji, Hitachi Japan, AE Power Systems, Mitsubishi Electric Corp, Schneider, Areva, Toshiba and VA Tech.[90] According to the Commission, "between 1988 and 2004, the companies rigged bids for procurement contracts, fixed prices, allocated projects to each other, shared markets and exchanged commercially important and confidential information."[90] Siemens was given the highest fine of €396 million, more than half of the total, for its alleged leadership role in the incident." There's more. Readers can learn more here then make up their own minds about trusting BIG corporations to do the right thing. Look under "controversies".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens
In January 2007 Siemens was fined €396 million by the European Commission for price fixing in EU electricity markets through a cartel involving 11 companies, including ABB, Alstom, Fuji, Hitachi Japan, AE Power Systems, Mitsubishi Electric Corp, Schneider, Areva, Toshiba and VA Tech.[90] According to the Commission, "between 1988 and 2004, the companies rigged bids for procurement contracts, fixed prices, allocated projects to each other, shared markets and exchanged commercially important and confidential information."[90] Siemens was given the highest fine of €396 million, more than half of the total, for its alleged leadership role in the incident." There's more. Readers can learn more here then make up their own minds about trusting BIG corporations to do the right thing. Look under "controversies".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens
9
Thanks for the information.
Yes,good article and more than everything else the needed social responsability
That has not been seen very often.What usually is seen is dinasaurs as the Koch brothers that try to perpetuate the old economy at any cost.
That has not been seen very often.What usually is seen is dinasaurs as the Koch brothers that try to perpetuate the old economy at any cost.
3
Let's address the biggest cause of Climate Change: Nature. She needs to die. After all, she's been trying to kill every living human being since homo sapiens sapiens arrived, and even before that.
The sun delivers uncountable gazillions of photons onto the Earth, heating it. The sun also delivers uncountable bajillions of other particles onto the Earth, and their effects are unknown. To ignore this source of energy - to claim that only Carbon, in the form of CO2, is the culprit - is infantile.
For the last decade and a half, the sensors and algorithms in place to determine "Global Average Temperature" have demonstrated that this (arbitrarily calculated) value has either flat-lined or decreased. In the 20 years prior to the last 15, the sensors and algorithms (admittedly, less good than what we have now) demonstrated that this value was increasing. If you believed it was true for 1979 - 1999, then the improved calculations from 1999-2015 must also be true: Meaning that the increases in CO2 over the last 15 years have not increased the GAT.
It's not CO2 that's the problem. It's the people who blindly believe it can't be anything else.
The sun delivers uncountable gazillions of photons onto the Earth, heating it. The sun also delivers uncountable bajillions of other particles onto the Earth, and their effects are unknown. To ignore this source of energy - to claim that only Carbon, in the form of CO2, is the culprit - is infantile.
For the last decade and a half, the sensors and algorithms in place to determine "Global Average Temperature" have demonstrated that this (arbitrarily calculated) value has either flat-lined or decreased. In the 20 years prior to the last 15, the sensors and algorithms (admittedly, less good than what we have now) demonstrated that this value was increasing. If you believed it was true for 1979 - 1999, then the improved calculations from 1999-2015 must also be true: Meaning that the increases in CO2 over the last 15 years have not increased the GAT.
It's not CO2 that's the problem. It's the people who blindly believe it can't be anything else.
Everything you wrote is wrong.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
If you had a fish tank that was humming along nicely, would you decide to experiment on it by increasing carbon by a third.
That is what we are doing with our planet, a giant experiment to see what happens when you change the chemical make up of the air and the oceans. Then we make bets on what will happen.
You may be right or you may be wrong. Is it worth burning every last bit of fossil fuels we can suck out of the planet, especially when the direct health effects are killing people every day?
Sustainable energy is not only cleaner, but in the long run cheaper, so what is the point of not moving as fast as we can to wind, solar, and other renewables (not infinite radiative waste creating nuclear, by the way)?
That is what we are doing with our planet, a giant experiment to see what happens when you change the chemical make up of the air and the oceans. Then we make bets on what will happen.
You may be right or you may be wrong. Is it worth burning every last bit of fossil fuels we can suck out of the planet, especially when the direct health effects are killing people every day?
Sustainable energy is not only cleaner, but in the long run cheaper, so what is the point of not moving as fast as we can to wind, solar, and other renewables (not infinite radiative waste creating nuclear, by the way)?
That's some pretty specific data you're "citing," but where did you get it?
Mr. Kaeser, don't forget to mention your quaint ideas to your German friends at Volkswagen who just got exposed as environmental frauds and crooks by the good leadership of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Volkswagen led the way on climate change by rigging 11 million diesel cars worldwide equipped with software used to cheat on emissions tests.
All we really need is a few less psychopaths in the executive suites of the world to tackle climate change.
Greed isn't really as great as it's cracked up to be.
Government should lead on climate change; corporations should follow with their greedy tails between their legs.
Volkswagen led the way on climate change by rigging 11 million diesel cars worldwide equipped with software used to cheat on emissions tests.
All we really need is a few less psychopaths in the executive suites of the world to tackle climate change.
Greed isn't really as great as it's cracked up to be.
Government should lead on climate change; corporations should follow with their greedy tails between their legs.
46
No, Socrates, the people must lead on climate change. Everything else will follow.
Thank you. It is always a good idea for the leaders of industry to remember that they and their families also live on this planet. To remember that no matter how rich you are there is no place else to go.
7
If Siemens can do this, plenty other companies can do so too! This kind of public commitment means a lot, as we'll be able to hold them accountable for it. Hopefully plenty other energy-intensive companies will follow this example.
8
"We have the technologies, we have the business incentive, and we have the responsibility." Unfortunately, we also have republicans.
11
Thank you, Siemens, for your leadership and conscientious corporate citizenship in the global challenge to sharply reduce carbon emissions. I hope and pray that more businesses will follow suit.
10
If the admission by Volkswagen, to evading in totality, emission standards, is emblematic of how several other corporations are conducting business, then we are indeed doomed.
The utter gall of an international corporation to fraudulently ignore it's responsibilities, in favor of profits, is simply extraordinary.
This is part of the corporate adulation of lucre, that is pervading the ranks of the .01%, resulting in inequality the likes of which has never been seen.
The only way to end this drive to the bottom, is for decent people to face reality and destroy this culture by first denying them access to the lucre.
The utter gall of an international corporation to fraudulently ignore it's responsibilities, in favor of profits, is simply extraordinary.
This is part of the corporate adulation of lucre, that is pervading the ranks of the .01%, resulting in inequality the likes of which has never been seen.
The only way to end this drive to the bottom, is for decent people to face reality and destroy this culture by first denying them access to the lucre.
2
America needs to exercise its traditional leadership in research and development to perfect 21st Century energy production technologies to replace the 19th Century fossil fuel technologies presently in use. As these technologies become more cost effective than old and dirty approaches, they'll be adopted by the rest of the world instead of the old and dirty technologies, saving money in the process. American companies would make a killing and employ more Americans, even while CO2 emissions decline without need for onerous taxes or other disruptive prohibitions.
And the world saves $5 trillion annually from the subsidies fossil fuels presently get.
And the world saves $5 trillion annually from the subsidies fossil fuels presently get.
3
Companies can help against climate change, sure. Or, if they are VW, they can sit back and laugh at all of us suckers.
1
Industry has had its chance to lead and it has failed miserably. Led like a bull with a ring in its nose by the fossil fuel industry, corporate America has shown that it has no moral compass and no regard for the untold suffering that climate change will cause future generations. As for the board level of most major corporations, they are only concerned with handing out obscene golden parachutes to their failed exclusive club members and enriching themselves. They are prisoners and puppets of the rapacious greed of unregulated, gangster capitalism. The current generations of CEOs and their political puppets in Congress will go down in history as criminals whose crimes are against humanity.
5
Thank you for explaining how increasing energy efficiency is both responsible and profitable. The 5-year payback you describe is about 15% ROI. Pretty good!
With that kind of return, maybe you could sell bonds at 5% to pay for the 15% yield and pocket the difference.
An interesting business model, after you get the experience under your belt of upgrading your own company, could be to provide these upgrades to other companies who may not possess the know-how. The up-front cost could be zero if paid for by bonds which could be paid back out of the energy cost savings, with cash flow to spare.
With that kind of return, maybe you could sell bonds at 5% to pay for the 15% yield and pocket the difference.
An interesting business model, after you get the experience under your belt of upgrading your own company, could be to provide these upgrades to other companies who may not possess the know-how. The up-front cost could be zero if paid for by bonds which could be paid back out of the energy cost savings, with cash flow to spare.
7
Industry "can lead" but mostly chooses not to. I recommend Inside Climate News' excellent work on how Exxon invested in responsible efforts to understand and address the role of fossil fuels in raising global temperatures -- and then did a nifty pivot to climate-change denialism. With enormous and devastating success.
7
Inside Climate News is an excellent antidote to the poison spewed by the denialists.
This is exactly the kind of story we all need to take to heart, especially people with power in business or in government.
Be leaders! Be heroes! Be ahead of the curve! Make a virtue of necessity!
Change is rapidly coming to all of us; it is upon us. Resistance is death to life as we know it.
It is not too late, but it is nearly too late. Act!
Be leaders! Be heroes! Be ahead of the curve! Make a virtue of necessity!
Change is rapidly coming to all of us; it is upon us. Resistance is death to life as we know it.
It is not too late, but it is nearly too late. Act!
1
If Siemens is indeed being as responsible as is reported in this article, there in the opportunity to stop, or at least slow the destruction of our planet.
Recently I learned, firsthand, the enduring value of safeguarding our environment, and the simplicity with which such can be accomplished.
A relatively small facility in NYC, intent on making a difference, designed and installed a 250 kW CHP plant, (combined heat and power plant), that produces not only all its electricity needs, but also reclaims the waste heat from the natural gas engine that drives the turbine, to provide all the domestic hot water needs of the facility, and the heating and a/c needs of the facility.
The a/c occurs through the use of the very best high efficiency hot water fired absorbers.
Along with this we changed out all lighting to LED's, literally every incandescent, fluorescent, and compact fluorescent (CFL) lamp, resulting in dramatic further reduction in operating expenses.
The carbon footprint reduction for this one facility is close to 400 tons, annually.
Imagine this kind of responsible action, everywhere on our planet.
Recently I learned, firsthand, the enduring value of safeguarding our environment, and the simplicity with which such can be accomplished.
A relatively small facility in NYC, intent on making a difference, designed and installed a 250 kW CHP plant, (combined heat and power plant), that produces not only all its electricity needs, but also reclaims the waste heat from the natural gas engine that drives the turbine, to provide all the domestic hot water needs of the facility, and the heating and a/c needs of the facility.
The a/c occurs through the use of the very best high efficiency hot water fired absorbers.
Along with this we changed out all lighting to LED's, literally every incandescent, fluorescent, and compact fluorescent (CFL) lamp, resulting in dramatic further reduction in operating expenses.
The carbon footprint reduction for this one facility is close to 400 tons, annually.
Imagine this kind of responsible action, everywhere on our planet.
22
This is exemplary. It's good to see that, while Volkswagen and German government actions against Greece show that not all Germans are enlightened, yet some truly are.
Meanwhile in America t's curious that so many people who are against aborting a single fetus are comfortable continuing on a course of ignoring global warming, even though that has a high likelihood of aborting most human life from this Earth. Those responsible for the darkest passage in German history last century have met their match in the American climate change deniers, in terms of the sheer millions of deaths they will be responsible for.
Meanwhile in America t's curious that so many people who are against aborting a single fetus are comfortable continuing on a course of ignoring global warming, even though that has a high likelihood of aborting most human life from this Earth. Those responsible for the darkest passage in German history last century have met their match in the American climate change deniers, in terms of the sheer millions of deaths they will be responsible for.
14
There is much, much more industry can do. "Industry" doesn't have children, but their employees have children and grandchildren. Corporations must educate their employees about energy efficiency in their homes and communities. No-interest auto loans and bonuses for purchasing electric cars (and free car charging at work!); bonuses for carpooling and working 4-day weeks; group purchases for solar and insulation installed at their residences; and community grants for solar farms in the towns and cities where the factories are located.
Don't let the executives get away with high-carbon-footprint lifestyles. They, too, must show that they live sustainably. That means no private jets.
Don't let the executives get away with high-carbon-footprint lifestyles. They, too, must show that they live sustainably. That means no private jets.
3
If companies can make money by modifying their technologies, fine. If not, its' suicide to indulge when Chinese and Indian companies don't do the same.
The hard reality is that railing against the problem and taking unilateral steps is futile if other carbon generating countries don't do the same. India and China alone have over 1,800,000,000 citizens living in poverty, and the odds that they will take sufficient measures and enforce them in a manner that diminishes their economies is zero. That's zero. They can't do it without spurring an insurrection.
And if they can't do it, all the Al Gore speeches in the world can't solvee the problem, nor can unilateral measures by western companies alone. Sometimes the planet can't be fixed. All of this talk makes people feel virtuous but without China and India on board, fuggeddiboutit.
The hard reality is that railing against the problem and taking unilateral steps is futile if other carbon generating countries don't do the same. India and China alone have over 1,800,000,000 citizens living in poverty, and the odds that they will take sufficient measures and enforce them in a manner that diminishes their economies is zero. That's zero. They can't do it without spurring an insurrection.
And if they can't do it, all the Al Gore speeches in the world can't solvee the problem, nor can unilateral measures by western companies alone. Sometimes the planet can't be fixed. All of this talk makes people feel virtuous but without China and India on board, fuggeddiboutit.
2
Convenient to blame India and China for global warming; but totally erroneous. The US has long been and continues to be by far the greatest emitter of carbon waste.
US per capita annual CO2 emissions are 11 times that of the Indians, and about 2.8 that of the Chinese. (2012 data)
The US has emitted about 28% of all CO2 from 1900-2012. China 11%, India 3%.
It isn't moral, in my opinion, for Americans to expect the Indians and Chinese living in poverty to cut back on emissions before we do or when we do. We've had a much bigger contribution to the existing problem than they have had, and an American has no special right to emit CO2 that an Indian or Chinese citizen doesn't have. Yes, these countries are needed for a full solution, but the notion they must be onboard from the start can't be justified.
PS: India has a (small) carbon tax on coal. We don't.
The US has emitted about 28% of all CO2 from 1900-2012. China 11%, India 3%.
It isn't moral, in my opinion, for Americans to expect the Indians and Chinese living in poverty to cut back on emissions before we do or when we do. We've had a much bigger contribution to the existing problem than they have had, and an American has no special right to emit CO2 that an Indian or Chinese citizen doesn't have. Yes, these countries are needed for a full solution, but the notion they must be onboard from the start can't be justified.
PS: India has a (small) carbon tax on coal. We don't.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
This only works when polluters have to pay. Right now corporations push the costs of pollution onto society. Most corporations are like VW, not this company.
18
And Congress can do that by passing an effective tax on carbon emissions asap.
1
This is a laudable goal, but as we have seen recently with Volkswagen this cuts both ways. For every company that sees a profit in taking the lead on climate change, there are many more who see a profit in taking the lead against it. Without strong government mandates, industry will merely continue business as usual, to the detriment of all.
20
Three cheers for Siemens. You point out a "long term" focus, that seems to be such a difficult concept for US corporations to embrace. Maybe Siemens can encourage that concept in the USA.
18
We could have started these efforts 40 or even 50 years ago. we know the real reason that has not happened: greed.
People can argue "climate change" all you want......real not real......
but the bottom line is and has always been clean air to breath, clean water and clean soil to grow nutritive food.
In the meantime, better late than never.
People can argue "climate change" all you want......real not real......
but the bottom line is and has always been clean air to breath, clean water and clean soil to grow nutritive food.
In the meantime, better late than never.
3
There is no doubt that corporations are essential if we are to decrease global carbon emissions and transition to clean energy. But let's not pretend that corporations are about to do this without financial benefit. For now businesses are following the "going green" trend for public relations and for the relatively small savings they generate. But real progress will come only when they transition to "clean" energy. There's plenty of money to be made in producing and installing solar panels, windmills, and geothermal plants. But there's even more to be lost by the huge petroleum industry, and they'll fight hard to keep that from happening. The way to do that in the US is by convincing enough of the voters that there is no threat from burning their products. That's because the government is the only way to change economic incentives so that it's feasible to switch to clean energy.
1
This is all so pointless. They know cutting our emissions will have virtually no effect on the climate. And CO2 is not pollution.
"And CO2 is not pollution." Thousands of scientists disagree with your statement. What iare your sources? Let me guess: Fox News, right-wing politicians, maybe 1% of scientists, most of whom work for an energy company. That should about cover it.
1
Stop adulating yourself - you are in just for the money, like everybody else. It is the government that have set up the right incentives. And since some of this incentives are unpopular or expensive, it is the will of the majority of the electorate.
You would forward fracking, if it would be more popular in other countries. And you are known to be prone for slush funding. Now with VW rigging the emissions tests nobody is taking this do-gooder image of companies for serious.
If there is an attitude, i would like to sell, it is that the government challenge this free market ingenuity and liberal superiority and put up some forwarding visions, like totally get rid of fossil fuel, instead of pampering sluggish conservative major corporation.
Siemens is not big in the ecofriendly energy business out of conviction, but because there are some to many crunchy-granolas in certain governments.
You would forward fracking, if it would be more popular in other countries. And you are known to be prone for slush funding. Now with VW rigging the emissions tests nobody is taking this do-gooder image of companies for serious.
If there is an attitude, i would like to sell, it is that the government challenge this free market ingenuity and liberal superiority and put up some forwarding visions, like totally get rid of fossil fuel, instead of pampering sluggish conservative major corporation.
Siemens is not big in the ecofriendly energy business out of conviction, but because there are some to many crunchy-granolas in certain governments.
14
Mathias-
Actually, many of our companies here in the U.S. ( not to mention our Republicans and their Murdoch network Fox) do need to hear this.
They are in it for the money and don't care about-- indeed ridicule those who do care about -- the environment.
So a boast that Siemens finds good citizen environmental protection profitable might help to lure some of our profit- above-all businesses towards at least somewhat more responsible behavior.
Actually, many of our companies here in the U.S. ( not to mention our Republicans and their Murdoch network Fox) do need to hear this.
They are in it for the money and don't care about-- indeed ridicule those who do care about -- the environment.
So a boast that Siemens finds good citizen environmental protection profitable might help to lure some of our profit- above-all businesses towards at least somewhat more responsible behavior.
56
It does not matter to me whether Siemens, or anybody else, is 'in it for the money.' What matters is that they ARE in it. Some legislators somewhere, if not in the US Congress, saw ways to provide financial incentives to do the right thing. Siemens and others have grabbed that ring. We need more rings.
5
Lynn,
You are taking the right tack; recrimination accomplishes little, at this stage in the history of our planet.
We all know the end game here, no matter how well those who value profits over life, try to hide it.
Every little bit helps, and perhaps before we know it, all will want to jump on the environmental protection bandwagon.
You are taking the right tack; recrimination accomplishes little, at this stage in the history of our planet.
We all know the end game here, no matter how well those who value profits over life, try to hide it.
Every little bit helps, and perhaps before we know it, all will want to jump on the environmental protection bandwagon.
4