No matter what way you try to sell “going green” to businesses, in the end it has to come down to making economic sense. Many environmentalists seem to think we can get people to be greener because it is the right thing to do and if that isn’t your motivation, then there is something wrong.

Take for instance the recent kerfluffle over the climate change bill in the US. Some environmental groups are calling it “Let’s Make A Deal” since it has so much compromise in it. The end product isn’t even near as stringent as they would like. However, they are not looking at it at all from a business standpoint. Businesses still need to make money and there will always be some give and take in negotiations. In this case, isn’t it better to have some progress and hope for more in time?

So let’s say you used to sell shoelaces to a shoe company. They told you just exactly how they wanted the laces made including out of a very strong material and very long. Many years later, as your company continues to make shoelaces, the fact surfaces that those laces you sold to the now defunct shoe company are the perfect length and strength for committing suicide. Now, loved-ones of people who have committed suicide are upset that someone could make a shoelace so perfect for committing suicide. You just made them how they were ordered and had no clue of the harmful nature of the laces but now you are being sued.

Does this scenario make sense to you? Yet it is eerily similar to a government lawsuit being brought against some scrap recycling companies that sold mercury to the Port Refinery many years ago. The Port Refinery was closed so now let’s sue those who sold the substance even though they sold it completely legally. What’s next? Is somebody going to sue the descendants of George Washington because they missed out on cherries that could have grown had he not chopped down the legendary cherry tree?

But such is the way with our runaway government. They seem bound and determined to squeeze out any possible cent from US businesses, even if it costs them more to do so than what they collect. Do you want to know why more companies are not finding ways to recycle electronics? Nobody wants to pay the price years from now when somebody determines the process used was in some way dangerous. So now companies send the electronics overseas – which might also get you into trouble.

A battery for utilities to store power until it is needed? No more brown-outs or forced rationing? That would be fabulous! And here comes GE with such a technology. Now, here is the big kicker – are they made from hazardous materials? Let’s hope not.

It seems GE has made a tremendous breakthrough in LED lighting. This has the potential of reducing the amount of energy used around the world dramatically. And all this without the mercury involved in CFL lighting. Unfortunately, it appears GE isn’t thinking of putting these in the hands of middle and lower income consumers. Only the rich will be able to afford the luxury of curbing their electricity usage.

You see, GE thinks that US consumers will be willing to pay $40 – $50 per bulb to make the trade. A mid-size home in the US uses about 30 bulbs. Currently, you can buy a package of 4 incandescent bulbs for less than $2. At $40 per bulb, it would cost $1200 to retrofit your home. Anybody just happen to have $1200 sitting around to spend on light bulbs when you could spend $16 instead?

I know, I know, we ought to think more about the environment. The only thing is, most middle and lower income people can’t afford a lump sum payment that high simple to save a little of the environment.

GE talks in terms of long-term savings, saying the bulbs will last 17 years. Well, in today’s mobile society, people don’t stay in the same residence for that long. I guess people will just start packing up their bulbs and taking them with them when they move, provided they have already made the $1200+ investment.

So, GE seems to have gotten it half right so far. Good on them for the invention, now it’s time to rethink that pricing policy.