How Costly is Being Green?

you may be aware that " need is mother of all inventions".

The need of the hour is being-Green. Sustaining Green.

it would be surely difficult to inherit the sustainablity realistically in the product planning or at the prodcut itself.however efforts put in the green direction will pay latter.

With Regards,

Shivakumar

Hello,

If you are in Bangalore India , you could buy today's News Paper Daily of "Deccan Herald" Bangalore Edition and examine DH Realty Supplent dated Friday, September 05, 2008. If not log to Deccan Herald Web Site.

This Report is answering your question with India wide DATA.

From my side, our NGO could give you a Plan and comprehensive practical, inexpensive Community solution to go Green with Solid Organic-WASTE handling, with ODOR FREE environment, Irrigation source from Sewage Waste Water, Waste of Plastic, Bio Medical, Glass, rubber, Metals etc converted s wealth resourse, if daily generation QTY permits etc

Contact<kishorekaikini@gmail.com>

HI again,

if am not wrong. the blog discussion was going green was costly.

my point was- yes , it will be costly/ burden at the initial stages, and at latter stages going green would be affordable. only policies, inclination towards social responsibilites etc would force to implement green.

and the data sheet also repesents same!.

Now, one simple question. Do you have 100% green going at your office @ bangalore. i suppose not. Why?

same is the senerio all over country.

I should think that the costs, policies etc, would not be any different from the time of the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, as long as you remember to factor in todays and tomorrows rises in inflation!

Spencer.

yes , I agree.

On hand you have inflation raising. on the other -the companies /polices allow controlled raise in costing- cost cut down measure etc.,

Do not worry about these my friends!!!

Yesterday's paper said the energy giants are keep pushing up their bills, and happy handing over 20% of their profits to shareholders, even though many of the consumers are struggling to keep up with their energy bill payments.

The need for this, the energy providers says, is to invest in future research for new energies.

So, there'll be soon plenty (abundant) of energy coming your way to satisfy all your energy needs, - "Believe it or not"?

And be happy!!! Christmas is around the corner to keep you warm and joyful for a day or two.

What more do you want?

"...conservation and sustainability..."

Two much misunderstood terms I believe. Conserving resources does not mean "not using them", it means using them wisely, not wastefully. And sustainability does not mean "expensive measures", it means doing things in such a way that you can continue doing them into and beyond the foreseeable future. Any company that is so short-sighted that it doesn't plan on how they will operate a hundred years out is not thinking sustainably. Unfortunately, most business plans today are considered good if they look 5 years out. Or even ONE. There has to be room in the thinking for innovation and outside influences, but to not even think about the far future probably means there won't be much of one...

The cheapest and most sustainable method of reducing so called greenhouse gas and other pollutions is to restrict the world population growth.

If governments can not get together and work on this problem all the other methods will never be able to catch up with the increasing power requirements of population increase. This of cause exposes the shallow thinking of the whole CO2 credits scheme which is just another way for governments to screw more money out of working people, the large industrial company's will keep turning out product [ even with more officiant methods of production ] to satisfy the wants of large population country's like India and China and who could deny them this. Sustainability of our environment will never happen until the population is properly balanced to the world we live in, and human nature being what it is I doubt it will ever happen.

I agree with you a lot.

Western countries in particular should put a very strict control on immigration. In many cases this results in unskilled immigrants with large families. They can live on benefits and never bother to work. Worse still, they even bring their ideological troubles with themselves and trying to pressure the new host country to take them for granted.

The people of poorer countries, instead of letting them immigrate, should be helped by organisations like the UN (that became highly useless in recent times) to educate both the population and sometimes their equally dumb governments on birth control.

In the west governments should also put more emphasis on practical training of young people to learn trades rather than all go to uni and often and up being nothing just another sales man with all the tricks and gimmicks up their sleeves.

And, to solve the aging population concerns in the west, governments should put more emphasis on family values instead of destroying them. Sure, the business of the family law firms and courts would suffer, but I say to HELL with them!!!

As far as I'm concerned families are more important than these law firms' businesses are for any society, in the long run.

I guess this makes me very unpopular and politically incorrect but facts are facts and they won't go away until they are addressed properly.

Of course, there's nothing worse than corrupt politicians and legislators along with their GIANT supporters, these can control peoples' mind more than they know.

Abu Qatada........need I say more?

Spencer.

I'm not sure that I would say "green" is costly. It may not be as cost effective in many cases. But how much effort is put into trying to stay green from the initiation of a product or process? If it is mandated as company policy to consider environmental issues throughout a whole project I have to believe it would make a difference.

We have come a long way from mass dumping of toxic waste in rivers. We may have a long way to go before we tackle the not so obvious threats to our environment.

Most companies that have truly embraced "sustainability" however you care to define it have reported not only savings, but profitability. It may entail more front-money, but lower maintenance costs, utility bills, and even the cost of the production line being less give a satisfying payback time. Older production facilities were designed and built with little if any regard for reduction in the cost of making something, anything, they were designed and built based on output. There are cheaper, better ways to achieve similar output in many, if not most instances.

Going green is not costly. In fact, it should be cheaper (as I have found in my personal life). What is costly is buying in to all the scams and hype venders that have decided this is the next big ticket game...

If you use less energy, consume less resources than you did yesterday, then you are greener today than you were yesterday. How can this be expensive? However, buying an electric car does not make you green. You are still using the energy- possibly more, since you must account for transmission losses, etc. You still need to consume the same amount of energy going from point A to point B. Using public transportation is greener than buying an electric car, but walking is even greener...And walking is generally less expensive, until you factor in the value of your time.