CEOs pledge sustainability, urge 'green revolution'

Check out the link above for the full article.

Funny, weren't we supposed to be in the midst of a Green industrial revolution already? What of the previous one between the 1940's and 1970s? What came of that? Oh right, I remember now... pseudo regulations and 'green' tech still engineered and manufactured with planned obsolescence in mind. They can call it green all they want, it's still not green. Industrial/ manufactured goods/materials/products will never truly be green until there are some serious economic reforms, namely aimed at the now global fractional reserve banking system, and the ever-popular consumerist culture. These are related branching topics, so I digress...

The call for reforestation sounds great, because it needs to happen. Anyone who's talked with me on that subject knows how important I view it. Forests are self contained, self regulated biological filters, air scrubbers, and global temperature regulators. They just need to be left alone to repair themselves. There isn't an invention or tax that is more efficient. Interestingly too, it seems to be a little bit of a Freudian slip. Many current 'studies' indicate expanding forest related biomass as releasing more carbon, claiming to be a problem. It's pretty obvious these 'studies' are being influenced by the various lumber textiles. It's a multi-billion dollar industry that only does so well because of consumerism and throw-away products. If there were regulations on logging, these tycoons would take serious hits. Naturally they pay to have studies conducted indicating deforestation as beneficial toward concerns of the ever ambiguous 'climate change'. How-ever the carbon cycle model and more recent studies indicate an increase in carbon dioxide would equate to an explosion of plant-life, so long as it is permitted to flourish without human intervention. These plants would absorb massive amounts of carbon dioxide, producing oxygen as a result of the chemical process of photosynthesis.

The biggest eyebrow-riser comes from Dupont, and their green pledge to gravitate toward sustainable solutions. Dupont, along with one of their cronies Monsanto, are anything but 'green'. They're largely responsible for the processed and genetically modified foods that have saturated the western countries. They're also behind the phosphate based chemical fertilizers that have ecologically devastated river systems and oceanic coastal regions. Lets not forget that apart from producing consumer and industrial textiles, they also produce products for 'military defense'. Their biggest claims to fame are having one of the first plutonium production facilities for nuclear armaments, Napalm, and their own variant of Agent Orange. All of these have had massive devastating ecological impacts on Asian ecosystems, and the people who live near/in them. For Dupont to step up and urge other corporatocracies to shift toward a Green industrial revolution to 'save the planet', is emphatically hypocritical.

I'd like to believe what these CEOs are saying, and that there is a genuine desire to move toward more sensible and sustainable operation models. How-ever their continued track record of lying, bribery, political lobbying, and continued environmental destruction makes me hesitant. Pardon me for not being able to get the scent of fermented bullshit out of my nostrils.

Mrindigo wrote:
Bullseye.

Great OP Indy

Over here a couple of years ago the government decided to channel huge fistfuls of fiat to give subsidy to anyone trading in their horribly polluting CO2 spewing car for a spanky new "greener" one. It was a massive incentive to many to buy a new car. On the surface this was sold as a 'green' policy that we should all applaud.

There are some problems though.
1- It's been reliably shown that 60% of the CO2 produced in a car's 'life' is from it's manufacture. That means my now 21 year old, 30 something MPG mk2 GTI is to all intents way greener than a shiny new blue motion Polo...

2- The move towards hybrid cars etc has increased the demand for minerals like Lithium. Sourcing these materials on the scale required involves no small amount of eco damage. It also leads to geopolitical instability. One may even consider it to be a factor in the UN occupation of places like Afghanistan.

Then we have such things as Bio-fuels. The demand for which has led to millions of acres of productive farmland being given over to their production. This has of course put pressure on food prices especially in the poorer countries where these crops tend to be grown.

I'm sure we'd ALL like to see us move toward a harmonious relationship with the planet. That aint gonna happen by letting these Trans-Nationals spin their yarns, fudge their science and put on a disguise.

dubmeup wrote:
Correct!
And yet this ridiculous obvious little fact is completely overlooked by people hypnotized by MSM.

A true green movement would inevitably destroy capitalism because they would have to manufacture cars that last donkey years ffs lol

What sort of a company is going to want to manufacture a set number of cars and then go out of business?

Let's bear in mind that the CO2 thing is a red herring though eh Point 1 is a great example of the spin, smoke and mirrors though innit Just lies on top of lies to hide the lies

dubmeup wrote:
Its not just CO2 pollution either though, manufacturing any of these goods inevitably leads to all sorts of massive pollution so basically what you said is correct regardless of CO2 dub

I know mate, just couldn't resist a little dig at AGW

There's a great little HYS going on at the BBC about the G20 in Mexico BTW. Some of us are having a field day hahahahahaha.
The lies are being exposed daily now

And here's a comment that just about sums up how the BBC are dealing with it
"This story has now been relegated to lesser 'one-liner' status on the main News page (replaced in top spot by the trivial inflation rate story).

What's up, BBC? Our comments not to your Eurocrat masters' liking?"

Good skills that man

dubmeup wrote:
Thank you Sir! Great post.
Ah, I remember that incentive well. The exchange program across the pond in the states was called 'cash for clunkers'. I agree with you 100%. There is more carbon emissions produced during the vehicles production than when it's used. There was something I wondered about as well. Since most of the older cars had more higher-grade metals and precious metals, was the incentive to gather those materials (unknowingly to the public)? I think of it similar to those cash for gold schemes that people fall for. The bio-fuels topic is one I haven't looked into yet, so thank you for passing the info along. I'm going to have to take a deeper look into that now.

Bio fuels=epic fail on so many levels.
The figures just don't stack up environmentally and people have been pushed to near starvation as a result of converting food producing land to fuel producing as well.
Another example of reckless, destructive corporate greed being sold as a "green" path to the future