Explore BrainMass

Businesses and "Going Green"

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

- What is meant by the concept of "Green"?
Is the definition of green a function of countries/culture?
Is the definition of green a function of laws / legal requirements?

- Can additional revenues/benefits/profits be generated by the fact that a company is classified as being "green" company?
Have green companies a better ranking in the market place? Have they beaten the market?

- Are customers willing to pay more for a car in order to support environmental preservation?

- Are the shareholders ready to give up profits to be Environmental friendly?

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 24, 2018, 6:44 pm ad1c9bdddf

Solution Preview

- What is meant by the concept of "Green"?
- Green is the global ecology movement is one of several new social movements that emerged at the end of the sixties, its growth has been stimulated by the widespread acknowledgement of the ecological crisis of our planet. Its story has ran alongside the environmental narratives that have reached popular consciousness. From the conservation movement at the beginning of the century then with concern in the sixties about chemical pesticides the ecological movement was born with Racheal Carsons Silent Spring.
- A product that exhibits the environmentally positive characteristics of an environmental organization approved through the DLA chaired Joint Group on Environmental Attributes, and has a less negative impact upon the environment than other similar products
Is the definition of green a function of countries/culture?
Yes the definition of green is a function of countries and culture.
OPEC's Members are developing countries, whose incomes are highly dependent on the export revenues they receive from sales of a single commodity, petroleum, on world markets. OPEC recognises that the protection of the environment, along with economic and social advancement, is one of the designated three pillars of sustainable development. Moreover, as developing countries, we believe that the eradication of poverty is an integral part of this process and that it should be treated as an overriding priority by all nations.
We are, therefore, particularly concerned about calls for new commitments to be made by developing countries, in spite of the fact that the Protocol itself limits the discussion of new commitments to Annex I Parties. New commitments for developing countries would significantly affect the ability of many sovereign states to achieve sustained economic growth, develop their social infrastructures and eradicate poverty. Developing countries - in spite of their deeply held convictions about environmental issues - cannot be expected to place the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in front of meeting the other more pressing socio-economic needs of their populations - a situation which is compounded by the general lack of clarity over the feasibility of decoupling emissions from economic growth, particularly for developing countries.
Moreover, the adoption by Annex I Parties of the Protocol's policies and measures has the potential to have very significant adverse effects on our own Member Countries, as well as on all other single-commodity-producing developing countries, a fact that has been recognized by the many provisions made in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, as well as in the Protocol itself. Therefore, we expect our well-founded concerns to be fully considered by this process and look forward to the implementation of commitments agreed under Articles 4.8 and 4.9 of the Convention, as well as Article 2.3 of the Protocol. Both producers and consumers agree that petroleum has a big role to play in meeting future world energy demand before other forms of energy are fully developed. Proven reserves of oil and gas are sufficient to meet rising demand for decades to come, while advances in technology will help them meet the toughest environment regulations and make a substantial contribution towards sustainable development. None of us should lose sight of this very important fact.
Furthermore, OPEC remains committed to its policy of promoting clean fossil fuel technology, in the interests of both developed and developing nations alike. To be effective in this, however, requires steady, predictable demand, built upon a clear, definitive vision of the evolution of the global environment in the years to come.
In 2002, 74% of total energy consumption in South Africa came from coal. Because coal is a highly carbon-intensive fossil fuel, overreliance on it for energy needs can have negative environmental impacts, including air pollution due to coal combustion, groundwater pollution due to mining, and disruption of ecosystems.
Laws are currently being developed and implemented to lessen environmental damage and pollution. The use of leaded gasoline will end in 2006, and all motor fuels (diesel and gasoline) will be required to contain less than 500 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur by that time. Motor fuel sulfur content will further be reduced to 50 ppm by 2010. The South African Petroleum Industry Association (SAPIA) estimates that the refining industry will need to invest $950 million to reach these new fuel specifications. Many petroleum retailers in South Africa switched from lead to MMT (a manganese-based additive) to boost octane. Because manganese is also a toxic metal, BP introduced South Africa 's first unleaded fuel that is free of heavy metals in September 2003. In June 2004, BP opened the first lead-free station in South Africa .
The National Environmental Management Air Quality Bill (NEMAQ) provides for the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism's (DEAT) establishment of national norms and standards for ambient air quality, emissions, air quality monitoring and air quality information management.
In recent years, a growing environmental movement in South Africa has challenged strip-mining operations in a sensitive wetland area, drawn international attention to pollution and conditions at the countries refineries, and legally challenged the establishment of South Africa 's pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR) program in Koeberg. Environmentalists oppose development of the PBMR, insisting that the scheme's environmental impact assessment is flawed. In June 2004, the South African government confirmed that the country would be forced to rely on nuclear power in the near future, encouraging environmental groups to focus on positive aspects of the project, including a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
· The focus is on results - making our air, water, and land cleaner.
· We need to employ the best science and data to inform our decision-making.
· Our policies should encourage innovation and the development of new, cleaner technologies.
· We should continue to build on America's ethic of stewardship and personal responsibility through education and volunteer opportunities, and in our daily lives.
· Opportunities for environmental improvements are not limited to Federal Government actions - States, tribes, local communities, and individuals must be included.
Building on Our Great Environmental Progress
· Over the last 30 years, our Nation has made great progress in providing for a better environment and improving public health. In that time, our economy grew 164 percent, population grew 39 percent, and our energy consumption increased 42 percent, yet air pollution from the six major pollutants decreased by 48 percent. In 2002, state data reported to EPA showed that approximately 251 million people (or 94 percent of the total population) were served by community water systems that met all health-based standards. This number is up from 79 percent in 1993.The President is committed to delivering even greater progress.

Is the definition of green a function of laws / legal requirements?
Yes the difinition of green is a function of laws/ legal requirements.
Clear Skies Initiative
President Bush's initiative, which has been introduced in Congress, would dramatically improve air quality by reducing power plants' emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury, by approximately 70 percent over the next 15 years, more than any other clean air initiative. This historic proposal will bring cleaner air to Americans faster, more reliably, and more cost-effectively than under current law.
· Clean Air Interstate Rule
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a proposal to require coal-burning power plants to make the steepest emissions cuts in over a decade. The Clean Air Interstate Rule will require power plants to substantially reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx). SO2 emissions will be cut by nearly 70 percent and NOx emissions will be cut by approximately 50 percent. ...

Solution Summary

Is our world really ready to "go green?" What is "green" and are people willing to sacrifice for it?

See Also This Related BrainMass Solution

Big Businesses Going Green

Critics say that corporations (like Wal-Mart for example), which have vowed to reduce its greenhouse emissions from the products it sells to the trucks that deliver them, may have a variety of reasons to help the environment. However, there are a number of questions which require serious consideration before a corporation goes "green". Please help in thoroughly answering the following questions:

What does Going Green really mean for a company?
What are the cost/benefits of Going Green?
Is it the right thing to do for a company, from both a qualitative and quantitative standpoint?

View Full Posting Details