Saving Our Planet: What Can Our Generation Do About It?

<p>Environmental concerns are not being accounted for today. The accounting profession is ignoring environmental issues until the environmental impact is so huge that only eco-friendly companies survive. This is unfair to investors who are trying to decide between dirty and clean businesses. ~ Justtotalk</p>

<hr>

<p>Sorry, this isn’t going to fly.</p>

<p>1) Investors aren’t completely stupid. They are fully aware of the possibilities of unforseen events and potential risk.</p>

<p>2) Potential risk is often calculated while doing Due Dilligence, the risk is also factored into insurance premiums which are included when showing overall profits.</p>

<p>3) In most cases, Depletion (if you aren’t familiar it is a concept used in mining and timber) is factored into future profits. </p>

<p>Asking anything else is unreasonable, unless that is what you are trying to be.</p>

<p>The obvious solution is to put our super rings together and summon Captain Planet.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The costs are estimable. Key word is estimate. When you can derive an estimate, you provide it. Like I said, create another income statement if you think it’s too volatile. But you give investors the information necessary to make business decisions, because your company represents the investor. </p>

<p>I have already shown other examples of estimable costs being included in today’s income statements (warranties, losses for insurance companies). </p>

<p>Showing environmental costs is a step forward in risk management and financial statement transparency.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Depletion includes the cost of the natural resource, of finding the resource, and then (if possible) restoring the area. It doesn’t account for pollution, erosion, or effect on stakeholders in the process. And depletion only applies to companies that actually excavate natural resources. What about all the other companies that forgo green technology in favor of pollution during manufacturing, etc.?</p>

<p>This is a choice that companies have the right to make. But the costs of these choices should be included. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As I’ve said before, if either the risk is not highly likely or the estimate is not available , the practice is to include the estimates in the notes. Only risks that are highly unlikely are not included at all. The cost of environmental impact is not highly unlikely–it is just difficult to estimate.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Of course. But you’re not giving them the whole picture of what the company will ultimately be liable for (either legally or morally–moral liability will ultimately affect PR and reduce sales). </p>

<p>Investors aren’t dumb. They know they’re playing a game of hot potato with dirty business stocks. But until you start projecting the real future profits of such companies, you’re allowing the pyramid scheme to continue.</p>

<p>BTW capitalizing depletion is only benefiting companies. They get to amortize the cost over the years instead of immediately expensing it (all the costs would have been immediate except for land restoration). I totally support this because the economic benefits of finding the natural resource lasts for years, but it’s worth noting that it’s not trying to measure anything environmental.</p>

<p>I am simply advocating more measures similar to depletion that will apply to all companies that impact the environment they are placed in.</p>

<p>Don’t get me wrong: green businesses should be required to present the same information. I don’t care about the public image of a company–beyond its effect on future sales. </p>

<p>A bunch of kids clapping their hands because some company puts a picture of some sunflower field on their laundry detergent doesn’t mean squat. I just want to see the financial future of companies I invest in–the cost of fixing environmental damage affects this future.</p>

<p>I’m only placing this in the “saving our planet” thread because this transparency would probably help the environment at the same time.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It does if they are thus conditioned from a young age to believe that a specific company’s product is the best and therefore buy it in the future. :P</p>

<p>^

</p>

<p>;-). 10 char.</p>

<p>I was merely pointing out that you could be contradicting yourself. :)</p>

<p>Pretty lame point. I was clearly implying that I don’t have a bias towards eco-friendly images with no backbone. They should reduce their environmental damage/costs in real terms.</p>

<p>It may be a lame point, but I don’t see it as an invalid one. Recognizing that companies use marketing techniques (quite effectively, I might add) that may not accurately reflect reality is important.</p>

<p>^My argument was that such marketing techniques do not reflect the environmental reality. If these companies are still causing environmental damage, then the costs they are creating/incurring should be displayed on their financials, too. </p>

<p>Their marketing antics might raise revenues, but it doesn’t exclude them from the environmental liabilities they are truly causing.</p>

<p>Case in point: Trader Joes. Public image = great. Reality = nothing different than other grocers. They are equally liable, and need to adjust their financials accordingly.</p>

<p>“Unless the price goes up so much that the majority of people cannot afford the resources they require (or think they require). Then people will turn to black markets and more sinister means of acquiring resources. I think we live in a culture that largely takes a lot of things for granted and has a bit of an entitlement complex.”</p>

<p>If prices got that high, they would <em>have</em> to come down or there would be a lot of inventory sitting around not making a profit. Read up on prices, read Basic Economics by Sowell, he talks about this resource issue.</p>

<p>“Investing in many world-wide exchanges are very effective, so you’re taking them for granted. Investors use financial reports to make decisions. Financial statements, as they currently stand, aren’t giving investors information on the cost of using up resources. In other words, there’s no issue on sustainability. ExxonMobil cannot drill oil forever, and yet the financials don’t show you that the core business operations have a limited life.”</p>

<p>What the heck are you talking about? Oil companies, or any producer of any good, has a very simple way of knowing whether a resource is becoming more scarce: it gets more expensive. This is basic economics.</p>

<p>justtotalk, you seem like a nice, well-meaning guy, but you have a poor understanding of economics and most of what you’re saying doesn’t make sense (i.e. it doesn’t line up with how an economy actually works). If energy is something you care about, then your first step is to study standard economics, not “green propaganda” (for lack of a better expression at this moment).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ll gladly study up on fields where I’m lacking. Please discredit specific statements.</p>

<p>Use more styrofoam</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I never said that the prices were so high that no one would be able to acquire resources. Shortage of resources = decrease in supply. Decrease in supply + stable demand = increasing equilibrium price. For this economic system to work, either supply would have to increase (which it won’t) or demand would have to decrease (which it won’t). Producers set their price based on the scarcity of what they produce (in theory), then there is some compromise involving the demand of consumers but there comes a point where the purchasing power of most consumers is simply not enough to acquire the product. I don’t see the price of yachts, private jets, etc. decreasing because most people can’t buy them.</p>

<p>Please explain to me specifically why the above is incorrect; I don’t feel like reading entire books on economic theory.</p>

<p>population control: agreed. Way too many people on this planet. No need to have more than 3 or 4 kids.</p>

<p>“For this economic system to work, either supply would have to increase (which it won’t) or demand would have to decrease (which it won’t). Producers set their price based on the scarcity of what they produce (in theory), then there is some compromise involving the demand of consumers but there comes a point where the purchasing power of most consumers is simply not enough to acquire the product. I don’t see the price of yachts, private jets, etc. decreasing because most people can’t buy them.”</p>

<p>Yachts and private jets are luxuries, and inherently expensive (until replicator technology is invented). Resources used for energy, like the kind we’re talking about, are necessities. Otherwise we’re back to caveman days. I don’t think you’d disagree with any of that.</p>

<p>But you’re not quite right when you say that prices are set by producers based on their scarcity. There is a sort of bidding process which determines prices. At an auction this is easy to see, in other instances it’s difficult to see how the bidding takes place. When a store sells jars of pickles for four bucks each, and I pick up the jar, look at it, see the price, then put it back on the shelf, this is as if the store said “jar of pickles starting at $4, do I have any bids?” and I didn’t raise my hand. If prices are too high for enough people to buy the product in the numbers the producer wants to, and at the price they want to sell for, then the price will come down. If producer A doesn’t bring it down, then producer B will bring it down. If the price is climbing due to increased scarcity (scarcity <em>affects</em> prices, but it doesn’t determine them), this will encourage producers to bring more of the product to market.</p>

<p>Using oil as an example, there are many known sources of oil. When you hear about “the oil supply” and how it’s running out, it’s a misinterpretation of facts. What’s called “the world’s supply of oil” is more accurately called “the world’s supply of known oil which it is profitable to get out of the ground and refined at the current market price of oil.” Places that weren’t considered worth drilling because of various reasons which made the oil there harder to get are then brought into action, etc. This happens with any product. If apples became popular, so popular they vanished from the shelves, apples wouldn’t just vanish forever and remain permanently very expensive. Land used for other purposes would be converted for apple growing. Higher profits (or higher potential profits owing to the high prices) attract investors.</p>

<p>A common pattern in the economy is for a particular product or industry to become very profitable and popular, prices to rise substantially or to stay high for a while, and then for other competing businesses and investors to swoop in and offer that same product or substitutes, which increases the supply and brings the price down. Higher prices act as signals in the economy, they guide resources to where they are most valued. The supply of that resource grows, which (all other factors aside) means the price can come down.</p>

<p>Now, you talked about constant demand. This happens for certain goods in certain times and places, look up price elasticity. But it doesn’t always happen and it has its limits when it does happen.</p>

<p>As I’ve said, assuming the scenario where oil literally runs out ever happens, it’s important to understand what would precede that so you can understand that you needn’t be afraid of it.</p>

<p>For one thing, the price would continue to climb as long as demand remained strong. Alternative energy sources, which before were unprofitable and cost more than they were worth, would become more worthwhile over time. Goods which require energy (vehicles, electronics, etc.) would be manufactured so as to be more energy efficient. More investment dollars would flow to new technologies and alternative energy sources (especially those that produced measurable results), people would change their habits because of the higher cost of doing certain things or buying certain things.</p>

<p>Some important things about that sequence of events:</p>

<p>No government program or centralized organization would be necessary to make it happen. It would all happen as a result of market forces, as a result of people responding to the incentives they face. Investors wanting to make money, consumers wanting to save money, etc. Particular technologies or energy sources would be used in places and by people for whom it is most appropriate, rather than being forced on people by a top-down government program aimed at making people use particular products (and lining the pockets of politically-well-connected corporations).</p>

<p>Also, we aren’t near running out of oil. The fear is based on a misunderstanding (or deliberate misrepresentation) of what “world oil supply” means. You hear that we only have fifteen, twelve, or tens years worth of oil. Well, that has always been the case, because of the way oil is counted, not because of how much oil there actually is in the ground.</p>

<p>I want to point out again that merely being scarce doesn’t make something expensive, and merely being abundant doesn’t make it cheap. If the demand isn’t there, a rare item will still be cheap and if demand is abundant, then an abundant good will be expensive. It can be confusing because scarcity and abundance seem to correlate so often with high and low prices. There <em>is</em> a relationship there, but it is one part of a back-and-forth process between supply and demand.</p>