RT shared a link.
Truebook.org shared a link.
link.
link.
link.
RT shared a link.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2013/07/06/20955421.html?cid=rssnewscanada
cnews.canoe.ca
Hundreds of people took part in the fourth annua
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2013/07/06/20955421.html?cid=rssnewscanada
cnews.canoe.ca
Hundreds of people took part in the fourth annua
Real Coastal Warriors shared a link.
had to properly account for the real costs of doing business;
taxpayer's and future generations should not pay their profits now SMOKE
and MIRRORS CORPORATE ACCOUNTING: MM&A and Lac Megantic ought to be
a lesson .. August 3rd 2013
In some industries, the damage
actually outstrips the value of products created : think of the profit
of 73 tankers of US fracked Oil vs the cost to the citizens; the town
and the business destroyed in Quebec ?
"Businesses use water
from rivers and lakes, without replacing what they take. They put
pollution in the atmosphere and don’t pay associated health care bills.
These are "externalities," or uncompensated costs, that pose an
increasing risk to the planet, as well as to companies themselves,
according to a new report.
If you put a financial figure to the
100 most serious environmental impacts that industry doesn’t currently
pay for--everything from greenhouse gases to land pollution--the number
is huge: $4.7 trillion a year.
I
Greenhouse gases make up
the largest share (38%), followed by water use (25%), land use (24%),
and air pollution (7%), according to Trucost, the research firm that
prepared the study. The report was published by the United
Nations-backed TEEB for Business Coalition, which wants to establish
"natural capital accounting" alongside traditional balance sheets.
The report looks at extractive industries like forestry, fisheries, and
mining, and processing ones like cement and steel, comparing natural
costs and revenues regionally. East Asian coal power generation has $453
billion in costs and only $443.1 in revenue. Cattle ranching and
farming in South America has $354 billion in costs, and just $17 billion
in revenue. North American coal has $317 billion in costs, and $66
billion in revenue.
This poses an inherent risk to investors,
the study says, as companies could not afford to meet costs if they had
to (say, if regulators got tough). That, in turn, would probably raise
prices at the grocery, and the pump.
"No high-impact
region-sectors generate sufficient profit to cover their environmental
impacts. Therefore if unpriced natural capital costs are internalized, a
large proportion would have to be passed on to consumers."
"The risk to agricultural commodity prices is particularly striking,
where the natural capital cost is universally higher than the revenue of
the sectors."
http://www.fastcoexist.com/ 1681883/ 47-trillion-the-environmental-c ost-of-business
By: Robofraud Canada
had to properly account for the real costs of doing business;
taxpayer's and future generations should not pay their profits now SMOKE
and MIRRORS CORPORATE ACCOUNTING: MM&A and Lac Megantic ought to be
a lesson .. August 3rd 2013
In some industries, the damage actually outstrips the value of products created : think of the profit of 73 tankers of US fracked Oil vs the cost to the citizens; the town and the business destroyed in Quebec ?
"Businesses use water from rivers and lakes, without replacing what they take. They put pollution in the atmosphere and don’t pay associated health care bills.
These are "externalities," or uncompensated costs, that pose an increasing risk to the planet, as well as to companies themselves, according to a new report.
If you put a financial figure to the 100 most serious environmental impacts that industry doesn’t currently pay for--everything from greenhouse gases to land pollution--the number is huge: $4.7 trillion a year.
I
Greenhouse gases make up the largest share (38%), followed by water use (25%), land use (24%), and air pollution (7%), according to Trucost, the research firm that prepared the study. The report was published by the United Nations-backed TEEB for Business Coalition, which wants to establish "natural capital accounting" alongside traditional balance sheets.
The report looks at extractive industries like forestry, fisheries, and mining, and processing ones like cement and steel, comparing natural costs and revenues regionally. East Asian coal power generation has $453 billion in costs and only $443.1 in revenue. Cattle ranching and farming in South America has $354 billion in costs, and just $17 billion in revenue. North American coal has $317 billion in costs, and $66 billion in revenue.
This poses an inherent risk to investors, the study says, as companies could not afford to meet costs if they had to (say, if regulators got tough). That, in turn, would probably raise prices at the grocery, and the pump.
"No high-impact region-sectors generate sufficient profit to cover their environmental impacts. Therefore if unpriced natural capital costs are internalized, a large proportion would have to be passed on to consumers."
"The risk to agricultural commodity prices is particularly striking, where the natural capital cost is universally higher than the revenue of the sectors."
http://www.fastcoexist.com/ 1681883/ 47-trillion-the-environmental-c ost-of-business
In some industries, the damage actually outstrips the value of products created : think of the profit of 73 tankers of US fracked Oil vs the cost to the citizens; the town and the business destroyed in Quebec ?
"Businesses use water from rivers and lakes, without replacing what they take. They put pollution in the atmosphere and don’t pay associated health care bills.
These are "externalities," or uncompensated costs, that pose an increasing risk to the planet, as well as to companies themselves, according to a new report.
If you put a financial figure to the 100 most serious environmental impacts that industry doesn’t currently pay for--everything from greenhouse gases to land pollution--the number is huge: $4.7 trillion a year.
I
Greenhouse gases make up the largest share (38%), followed by water use (25%), land use (24%), and air pollution (7%), according to Trucost, the research firm that prepared the study. The report was published by the United Nations-backed TEEB for Business Coalition, which wants to establish "natural capital accounting" alongside traditional balance sheets.
The report looks at extractive industries like forestry, fisheries, and mining, and processing ones like cement and steel, comparing natural costs and revenues regionally. East Asian coal power generation has $453 billion in costs and only $443.1 in revenue. Cattle ranching and farming in South America has $354 billion in costs, and just $17 billion in revenue. North American coal has $317 billion in costs, and $66 billion in revenue.
This poses an inherent risk to investors, the study says, as companies could not afford to meet costs if they had to (say, if regulators got tough). That, in turn, would probably raise prices at the grocery, and the pump.
"No high-impact region-sectors generate sufficient profit to cover their environmental impacts. Therefore if unpriced natural capital costs are internalized, a large proportion would have to be passed on to consumers."
"The risk to agricultural commodity prices is particularly striking, where the natural capital cost is universally higher than the revenue of the sectors."
http://www.fastcoexist.com/
By: Robofraud Canada




![Love each other, y'all. Or at least be kind.
Thanks @[134756069932610:274:Give a Shit about Nature] for the image!](https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/p320x320/1000302_601943129846549_1988099394_n.png)












