That link is to the correct site but does not even list the article I intended.

sodahead . com / united - states / earths - atmosphere - co2 - impoverished

shows a graph of atmospheric temperature and CO2 content all the way back to the precambrian.

There is nothing wrong with a company of whatever size working to minimise their production of polution or other deleterious envronmental impacts, nor with advertizing the fact that they do. However, CO2 does not qualify as a polutant, and most companies advertizing their good stewardship of the envronment are either using subsidies rather than profit as a business model, or they are doing it out of self-defense because they are in competition with companies that do.

Click to view link

When a company advertises itself as a "sustainable, green, earth-friendly", they are telling us that they are the prostitutes. Which is quite normal, accepted, and certainly is nothing new. Most entities around us are prostitutes (be it to the government, politics, or mass opinion), and it is one of the survivalist tactics.

These days, there are vast numbers of complete idiots amongst the population. They believe in various memes that the government is spreading. One of them is the sustainability, green, etc. Of course, any company that actually believes in such memes would immediately lose to it's competition. Therefore the art is to make it look as if the company is really minded about sustainability, but try to spend as little as possible, while benefiting form the support these idiots do provide to such companies without any reason.

So, why does the government promotes this meme? For two reasons. First, it helps to reduce the power needs of the usa, which is the part of the plan to survive the dollar collapse, and second is that anyone that follows any stupid meme such as sustainability is a prime subject of manipulation. It is sort of a lakmus test that shows that a person is welcoming any foreign direction, and will act on it, against it's own benefit. In other words, if you belive in sustainability, you are just the kind of a fool that is useful during tough times, because he can be told to sacrifice himself, and he will do it.

In regard to your statement,

"I noticed in reading the article that outside of some energy savings the firm really doesn't seem to have a firm handle on costs and benefits."

I forgot to tie in that in the wonderful world of monopoly, budgets don't really matter or can be written after the fact. So long as it is deemed 'sustainable' profit is virtually guaranteed as price is in the column of social cost. There must be an atmosphere of bizzaroland at the top of these firms.

I can only imagine that a corporation in the fold of global monopolies would have an entirely different view of profit. It would merely be an indicator or gauge to assist in setting price. Likewise, CO2 or carbon foot print would be a gauge of a companies energy intensity, which has to do with effiency, which is important for profit in the true marketplace of competition. Sustainabilty then measures the success of keeping the ruse going, and stakeholders (instead of shareholders), many of whom are in govt., then have a stake in upholding the ruse.

The ruse is that we have a free market.

Too off topic I suppose? ;-) Not even an answer to my mailadress. Where is it best to contact you in matters like mine?

Reply from The Daily Bell

We have emailed you.

ROFL - ol' grey ghost says: "Does anyone else remember when the word "green" meant, besides the color, "immature," "inexperienced," or "naive?" Funny thing."

Priceless!

The Commission on Presidential Debates is a private corporation headed by the former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the major party candidates to draft secret agreements about debate arrangements including moderators, debate format and even participants. The result is a travesty riddled with sterile, non-contentious arguments which consistently exclude alternative voices that Americans want to hear.

This documentary also reveals the big corporations who 'sponsor' the CPD and how third party candidates are purposely excluded. One of these sponsors, Annheiser Busch, is partly owned by Senator John McCain's wife. Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura's election as an independent candidate proves that opening up debates can lead to real change - something the entrenched Republican and Democratic Parties don't want to see.

Who's Afraid of an Open Debate? The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates (Full Version)

Click to view link

Dr. med. Werner L. Ende
Medical Specialist for Internal Medicine and Laboratory Medicine
c/O W. Bockel
Hallgrafenstr. 25
D 83435 Bad Reichenhall

mailto:werner.ende@Click to view link

for more than 30 years I worked as physician.

I can't say, that we had bad experience with Nordisk Insulin and other antidiabetica working in a hospital for internal diseases during the seventies and eigthies

Today my vision of the benefits of some drugs the "Big Pharmaceutics" have marketed has changed a lot.

In connection with intensive researchs not only on Austrian Economics but especially on the global influence on politics by the Anglo-American Powerelite - having read
Flynn, Rothbard, C. Lewis and just now  Family of Secrets: the Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years -
it is hardly surprising, that Nordisk like Merck(*) and other big pharmaceutics are doing such a bad job as You pointed out in this well-researched and presented article.


And last but not least, i would like to remark:
The Daily Bell belongs together with Click to view link Daily to my most appreciated online magazines.

(*): conc. Merck: "Do Painkillers Kill? "by Werner L. Ende MD url: Click to view link

kind regards
?
Dr. Werner Ende 6. Januar 2013

The terms "social responsibility" and "sustainable" (with respect to the environment) are public relations terms that some companies (especially highly visible multi-national corporations) use to improve their public perception. Hopefully, they don't spend (waste) too much money on that area, since it rarely adds significantly to shareholder value and is generally more likely to simply reduce the overall value of a company. It does have some value as a PR matter, especially if the company does not waste many resources on these "socially responsible" or "green" priorities. In some cases, highly visible multi-nationals may be forced (by governmental extortion) to support various green initiatives -- where I suspect the wind-energy project may have been an example.

Not so long ago, British Petroleum -- having changed its name to "BP" was advertising "BP means Beyond Petroleum" -- with commercials showing photos of fish and other natural scenes. Mention of research on various non-oil energy projects was usually included. These commercials seem to have been shelved subsequent to the BP drilling platform "blow out" in the Gulf of Mexico -- that the U.S. Government has used to extort considerable sums from BP -- even forcing the ouster of the BP chairman.

As for Novo Nordisk, the reports at Click to view link suggest a fairly good future (from the public pages): As the leading provider of diabetes care products, Novo Nordisk benefits from decades of accumulated research and marketing experience, sticky customers, scale advantages, and a strong patent portfolio. These competitive advantages, coupled with favorable market dynamics, should enable Novo to continue to earn returns well above its cost of capital during the long run. [end quote]

FWIW, the large HMO handling my health care has announced that the Insulin provided them by Novo Nordisk over the past few years will be replaced with another brand, claiming lower cost and "equal quality." So, N-N is subject to competition and, as usual, when one company seems to be obtaining extraordinary returns, other companies are drawn into that market. (This is what capitalism is all about.) Any company wasting money on "social responsibility" or "green" projects is likely to become non-competitive -- and the more spent outside the primary focus of the company, the more quickly any competitive advantages will be lost.

What I look for in a company (especially as an investor) it one that focuses on what they do best and does its best to increase shareholder value (by increasing the value of the company). To me, this is the highest "good" that a company can do. Of course, I expect that a company will perform its work in an ethical manner and in compliance with the existing rules and regulations (though many of such government imposed rules and regulations are not rational).

I do not expect companies to squander money on social programs or green projects if they do not directly advance the company interest -- otherwise, such spending is counterproductive. There are times where a company might receive positive publicity for (as an example) providing seemingly extraordinary benefits to employees (such as child-care facilities, or other "socially responsible" things), but if this allows the company to recruit and maintain an above-average workforce that is more productive, then such "socially responsible" practices may make good economic sense (and would not be a basis of compliant).

I note that I am not positively swayed by claims of "green products" appearing on the supermarket shelves. Indeed, my suspicion is that such products may be less effective (and usually more expensive) than their non-green competitors. If the "green" product offered improved economics, then it likely would have already been on the market in the past...

"sustainable" is about non-economic metrics. The "point" is to allow unproductive self-decreed "stakeholders" influence over your business and, to capture some market share from those whom believe in these "values".

and, if you have to "propagandize" how great you are, clearly, you are not so certain you can stand on your own merits, in the unbiased opinions of those you seek to trade with. Presumably, these "immaterial" (unmeasurable) "values" are "hoped" to be worth something to those whom don't fully consider objective (measurable) value.

The only really "sustainable" aspect in all these discussions is that we continue to deny that the human species will be one of the shortest ever to "occupy" (or inhabit) the Planet. We are a disasterous species bent on self destruction and everything around us. We are a malignat incurable cancer that is sure to outgrow our own survival. This beautiful yet tempestuous "blue planet" will outlive us by billions of years. Alone that plastics with their endocrime modulating chemicals will ensure our demise within the next hundred thousand or so years. Besides the very real possibility that a wide spread nuclear holocaust spewing plutonium into the atmosphere (and there are no safe levels of this highly toxic isotope)will make life "non-sustainableä" as well as all living matter. Then again another heavenly body from the universe like the one that struck 65 million years ago is as certain as the universe itself. So we humans should relax and enjoy life without perpetularly cultivating fear-mongering. But the Orwellian scene cannot and will not be denied on that score. The evolution of his predictions has already come to pass making his forecast the only real sustainabiliy until the horizon glows from either another meterorite or rash of accidental or intentionsl nuclear explosions.

Just send this to all of the State and local elected politicians - let the Power and money return to the States and end Federal agencies and unelected bureaucrats picking winners and losers. A Article V State amendment as outlined below can make DC smaller - weaker and back under the four Corners of the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION. The power would return to the many States and to representatives that we the people can meet face to face expressing our concerns - ever tried to meet with a DC Congress person or a Senator?

The following movement is taking hold and gaining popularity as it spreads across the 50 States DC will start recognizing that their days are numbered. Liberty and Freedom Restored and State powers returned to protect we the people from the tyranny and oppression now coming from DC. Come join the fight.

Click to view link

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks.

I have had exactly the same suspicions. The first place we saw sustainable crop up was literally WITH crops. I am in agricultural research so I became naturally suspicious of the word. Lo and Behold, there was/is not a clear definition. It started out supposedly as a term meaning to somehow farm in "balance" with nature ecologically speaking. Again, it was never clearly defined, and I noticed PROFIT was not even IN the definition. What farmer can farm sustainably without PROFIT? Now, I see sustainable education talked about (it seems to translate to "democracy" in education, further decoded to mean communism). Now, sustainable in agriculture has social justice thrown in to the mix. You are suspicious with good reason.

I remember when a "sustainable company" was one that was making enough money from the business it was engaged in to cover all its operating cost with a dab of "net profit" on top...

Click to view link

Click to view link

Does anyone else remember when the word "green" meant, besides the color, "immature," "inexperienced," or "naive?" Funny thing...

If they are concerned about the CO2 emissions they should forbid their 33,000 workers from exhaling.
Geese...

Carbon and Life

-It is hard to overstate the importance of carbon; its unique capacity for forming multiple bonds and chains at low energies makes life as we know it possible, and justifies an entire major branch of chemistry - organic chemistry - dedicated to its compounds. In fact, most of the compounds known to science are carbon compounds, often called organic compounds because it was in the context of biochemistry that they were first studied in depth.

-What makes carbon so special is that every carbon atom is eager to bond with as many as four other atoms. This makes it possible for long chains and rings to be formed out of them, together with other atoms - almost always hydrogen, often oxygen, sometimes nitrogen, sulfur or halides. The study of these is the basis of organic chemistry; the compounds carbon forms with metals are generally considered inorganic. Chains and rings are fundamental to the way carbon-based life forms - that is, all known life-forms - build themselves.

-Silicon is capable of forming the same sorts of bonds and structures, but opinion is divided on whether silicon-based life forms are a realistic prospect - in part because it needs higher energies to form them, and in part because whereas carbon dioxide (one of the main by-products of respiration, a process essential to all known life) is a gas and therefore easy to remove from the body, its counterpart silicon dioxide (silica) has an inconveniently high melting point, posing a serious waste disposal problem for any would-be silicon-based life form.

EPA official's 'crucify' comment continues to draw fire Apr 27, 2012

Click to view link

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks. Missed that one.

DB: What is a "sustainable" business anyway?

BM: Profit relative to capital structure.

Profit and loss ensures that those that are most judicious in the use of resources relative to market demands will survive. Prices, the most important communication tool known to man, ensure that resources are allocated to those who value them the most.

Resources to those who most value them + profit and loss to ensure the most efficient survive = the most sustainable businesses, and in fact the most environmentally friendly.

Any interference in this formula results in the waste of resources. As governments around the world interfere in this formula every day and with every action, it is clear that governments are the largest environmental wastrels on earth.