Tank Tek

As much as we hate to think about it, it’s always a relevant issue. Unless you live in a metropolitan area such as Manhattan, you probably require a vehicle on a daily basis. Hey, it’s nothing to be ashamed of. I’m certainly not going to jump all over your case like some environmental nut, screaming about pollution. Our world has been designed to where we typically need cars, trucks, and SUVs to get from point A to point B. The true concern here is vehicle gas mileage. Can you afford to drive back and fourth to work on a daily basis? If the answer is no, you may want to consider a different vehicle.

Vehicle gas mileage has become a major pitch for car companies. I’d assume the manufacturers must despise the gas companies. The cost of gas is actually hurting their business. While Americans become more conscious about what they have to fork out on gasoline every month, the SUV sales are plummeting. We simply can’t afford to drive vehicles that only get 16 miles to the gallon. Then you spend 60 bucks filling the tank of and H2 or Suburban. It’s just not worth it. We want vehicles that get 65 miles to the gallon if it’s an option. Especially if we mostly use them to commute back and fourth to work. And as far as the gas companies go, they’re basically charging whatever they please. They don’t care! They’re only trying to make a buck. And when the season changes for heavy travel, the gas costs sky-rocket.

You do have a choice in the matter. Luckily for us, more and more manufacturers are producing vehicles that offer great gas mileage. They’re even coming out with new-age SUVs that get nearly 30 miles to the gallon. That’s darn good! And if you really wish to take great vehicle gas mileage to the next level, you can always invest in a contemporary hybrid. These are selling like crazy now days. They’re not exactly cheap, but the cash you’ll save on gas is probably worth it. With these vehicles the energy use is split between gasoline and a battery. It’s amazing what they’re coming up with now days.

Nothing arouses more controversy and argument than the subject of nuclear power. Since the advent of the nuclear power plant, there has been strong opposition and defenders of the technology. The figures for 2006 show that there are 442 reactors in the world, producing 17% of the world’s electricity. The finite nature of fossil fuels is focusing the minds of politicians on whether to build new plants. Every time a new reactor is mooted, there are lengthy inquiries and protests.

Supporters of nuclear power say that the absence of greenhouse gas emissions is justification for building more nuclear power plant facilities. Environmental campaigners, such as Greenpeace, point to a number of concerns. There have been accidents, notably at Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island, radioactive leaks, and there is the threat of terrorism at nuclear facilitates.

Radioactive waste is another problem, with regard to how to transport it and how to dispose of it safely. The waste is dangerous to humans for thousands of years. Plutonium, a by product of nuclear power, can be used in the manufacture of an atomic bomb, a factor going against the quest for non-proliferation.

Cost is also a factor in the debate. The reactors are very expensive to build and to maintain. Their lifetime is limited and then they have to be decommissioned, another costly exercise. The technology of the nuclear power plant is reliant on uranium and this is a finite resource anyway.

When the first electricity power was produced by a nuclear reactor in 1951 in an Idaho experimental plant, it was supposed to usher in a golden era of clean power. The first commercial enterprise in the world began five years later at Calder Hall in England. The nuclear age has not met with universal praise. Many people claim that radioactive waste from a plant in Cumbria, England routinely leaks into the Irish Sea and that there is an above average amount of leukemia in the area.

The anti-nuclear lobby has a friend in the hit show, The Simpsons. The character of Homer Simpson is an incompetent safety officer at the local nuclear power plant. The industry is lampooned, showing Mr. Burns, the plant’s owner, as an irresponsible money grabber with no social conscience. Core meltdowns are a regular occurrence, often averted by Homer who has invariably caused the incident in the first place.

The campaign for alternative energy sources continues. People who are not comfortable with the expansion of nuclear power look to wave, wind and solar power for the answer in addition to energy conservation. In the meantime, let us hope that Homer is a vast exaggeration.

Corporate social responsibility has been one of the most problematic and troubling factors of business management since almost the very beginning of the corporation. Social responsibility corporate used to be a very simple thing, but it is no longer so. In the beginning, corporate charters were extremely simple. You would charter a corporation for one task – say, to build a bridge. That corporation would have the right to perform that one task and no further tasks. Back then, socially responsible corporations were the rule rather than the exception. Because they had such limited power, they would be forced to stay within the law.

Nowadays, corporate strategy is the main concern. Corporations social responsibility always takes a back seat. You see, it comes down to this: competition is the bottom line. A socially responsible corporation will, in general, be at a disadvantage when compared to one that is more ruthless. This is why, as citizens and as business people, we have to do everything that we can to keep corporations socially responsible. Otherwise, the disturbing trend of corporate corruption will continue and even get worse. As corporations get bigger and globalization takes off, corporate responsibility is vastly becoming one of the greatest concerns of the 21st century.

Environmental corporate social responsibility is one of the areas that have been most problematic. Since the beginning of the industrial age, and perhaps even before, corporate social responsibility with regard to the environment has been abysmal. Nowadays, fortunately, there are signs of hope. New government laws to protect the environment, as well as consumer watchdog groups  help enforce corporate social responsibility with regard to health and environmental concerns.  The popularity of green products, as well as organic foodstuffs, has made corporate social responsibility much more profitable in some areas. Hopefully, this trend will continue.

Unfortunately, some social issues are not improving. Corporate social responsibility with regards to workers rights has never been good, and it is only getting worse with globalization. Although the fair trade movement, the anti-sweatshop movement, and other similar workers rights initiatives have done some good, we generally continue to lose ground rather than to gain it. As companies are moving overseas to cheaper labor markets with less workers rights protections, this trend will only get worse. Until workers are able to unite on a truly global basis, corporate social responsibility will remain abysmal. After all, it is in their interests to pay less, and no one is stopping them.

Pressure groups that campaigned for environmental issues, such as Greenpeace, started out on the fringe of society. Today, environmental issues are high on the public agenda of the major political parties. Has it all been left too late? Hopefully, the will to overcome problems will be strong enough and practical solutions can be implemented.

Political officials have realized that their voters are worried about carbon gas emissions, pollution and climate change and these environmental issues must be addressed. Traditionally, the partisan political parties have been more focused on winning elections and introducing voter friendly policies with a quick turnaround. Tackling the environment is about finding long term solutions.

Big business has also joined the debate. Oil companies fund their own research into alternative energy sources. Of course, cynics will say, this is more to do with commercial reasons and not as a matter of conscience. The oil will run out sometime and alternatives have to be found.

Sometimes, the ordinary individual feels swamped in the face of such global problems. We are all urged to reduce our carbon footprint but it has to be a unified effort. Taking personal responsibility is the first step. It doesn’t take much effort to recycle, buy long life light bulbs and leave the car in the garage for certain journeys. Everyone can get involved in environmental issues. If there is a problem, then there is a solution waiting. Wasted energy is a big factor. Heat escapes from homes with poor insulation, central heating is set too high and most people are guilty of leaving electrical appliances on stand by.

So what are the solutions? For people to be persuaded to leave their cars at home, there must be an improved public transport service. Some local authorities in the UK are piloting a scheme, whereby householders are fined if they don’t recycle their waste. We all take our appliances for granted and it’s inconceivable that people will do without their washing machines, fridges, TVs and stereo systems. Do we really need leaf blowers, garden heaters and electric carvers? Would civilization come to a halt if we got rid of dishwashers?

The other thorny subject is travel. Plane tickets get cheaper all the time and the British and Europeans particularly enjoy holidays abroad. Some people campaign for holiday airplane trips to be limited. Perhaps domestic plane journeys in small countries such as Britain could be banned. We all like to be mobile but there is a high price to pay. If we don’t compromise, we will have to explain to our grandchildren, why we didn’t stop constant floods, acid rain and other environmental issues.