>Green Is Green

>GE is investing some serious change in its “Ecomagination” environmental initiative –$10 billion over the next five years, to be precise:

GE has a whole lot faith in its ecomagination initiative. So much faith, in fact, that the company is pumping $10 billion into the project’s R&D over the next 5 years–effectively doubling its investment from the past 5 years. The reason is simple: ecomagination is a cash cow, generating $70 billion in revenue since its inception in 2005. With the world’s attention turned toward clean technology, that number will almost certainly grow.

Ecomagination projects are diverse, global, and span a variety of industrial and consumer platforms. They include investment in renewable energy and energy conservation, smart grid technology, water conservation, and development of energy efficient products for industrial and consumer use. Once again I say: when oh when will green technology prove it is comepetitive? {/snark} You can find a list of the many Ecomagination projects here.

What really blew my mind is this:

Ecomagination is so big that it may soon top the federal government’s investments in research and development, according to Earth2Tech. The government spends approximately $5 billion annually on energy innovation R&D.

But GE isn’t on a mission to best the government for fun–the company believes it will generate $25 billion in 2010, up from $18 billion in 2009. Over the next 5 years, GE hopes that ecomagination revenue will grow at twice the rate of the company’s total revenue. If this doesn’t prove that green technology is both a financially and ethically responsible investment, we’re not sure what does.

The fact that our government invests such a paltry sum in new energy technology is very sad. It tells me that it is stuck in the past, tied to the old economy, and is not interested in partnering with private industry in creating the new energy future. Many of us have wanted to hear President Obama call for a “Manhattan Project for energy” (I prefer the term Apollo Project, since the Manhattan Project is what gave us the atomic bomb). We could do it right there in Tennessee — the Manhattan Project, after all, is what gave us Oak Ridge. Nobody yammered about the need for the “free hand of the market” to develop atomic technology back then, indeed it was of strategic national importance. It seems to me that getting off fossil fuels and demonstrating our energy independence from foreign energy sources is at least as important to our national security as building deadly bombs.

Sadly, as I’ve said a thousand times before, what this nation lacks is not the technology nor the resources to make this happen but the political will. Too many people in positions of power under the thumb of too many people whose continued existence depends on us living in the past.

But there’s hope. Green technology is coming, it’s here, it’s competitive, and it’s profitable. While BP sets aside $20 billion to cleanup its mess in the Gulf of Mexico, GE allocates half that amount for a different kind of future. Its first $5 billion investment has now generated $70 billion in revenue: I ask you, who will get more for their investment? BP or GE? Simple question, simple answer.

Progress happens, whether the American Enteriprise Institute and Koch Industries likes it or not. Green technology is the wave of the future, people. And it’s profitable right now.

Climb on board or be left behind.

5 Comments

Filed under energy future

5 responses to “>Green Is Green

  1. >I agree with you completely that what we lack is the political will to do things. It is the major problem of our time. We have the resources and the people with ideas and the desire to do great work but we lack the will to proceed and support them.

  2. >Purple Girl, do you mean "we" or "they"?Cos all I see is one side clinging to Saint "Morning in America" Ronnie, and damned determined to keep any recovery or progress from happening on Obama's watch.(Obligatory: Also Democrats who want to be this year's version of "I lost to Joe Scarborough". And a media who can't be worried to tell us the difference, lest they get disinvited to all the right cocktail parties.)But, yes, one more vote about making the big ol' "5 Billion with a B" so OOOH, SCARY, and begging for 144-point type in the Moonie Times. As a percentage, how real economists count things, it's piddling.ThresherKPS I hope the laid off Disney folks can get in to GE with their Imagineering degrees. Same discipline, right?

  3. >I see no reason to change the policies of the United Petroleum Companies of America.

  4. >I went to the ARRA website, and all I could find in investment for renewable energy was $3B. Does that mean the federal gov invested $8B in 2009?Most of that went to private industry, i.e. Tesla automobiles.It's not enough, by a longshot. We should have taken all the money we spent on tax breaks and built a few wind and solar farms operated by the federal government.

  5. >FJ:I don't know what the total is, but ARRA spending was over and above what is already spent on energy R&D. It was in addition to, not the total sum.