Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!

Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!

  • Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

A good example of where I don't want to see it going

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why not....?

Ed Metcalfe

Please do not feed the trolls.....
 
The potential shift of political power that google could hold.



Chance,

F, G + Its official, its even on a organisation chart et all
 
It's a nice thing to do, and the benefits could be great. However as you point out, it would make them somewhat influential (more so).

"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area" - Major Mike Shearer
 
goolgle maniac said:
"Our goal is to produce one gigawatt of renewable energy capacity that is cheaper than coal. We are optimistic this can be done in years, not decades."

Last time i checked, Google was a internet search company not a leading expert in energy or global economics.



Chance,

F, G + Its official, its even on a organisation chart et all
 
It's also not Google as such, it's being done in a way simlar to Bill gates's trust (which last I heard more spending power for charitible causes than UNICEF)

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004
 
Right...it's partly philanthropy through their charitable organization. But the other part of it is that energy is expensive these days, and all of Google's datacenters eat up a whole lot of energy. If they can develop a technology to make electricity cheaper, that helps them in more ways than one (not to mention the rest of the world).
 
Chance1234:
Last time i checked, Google was a internet search company not a leading expert in energy or global economics.
The last time I checked, Google was a general-purpose business that had done a fine job of increasing shareholder value through their information-handling tools.

Since goverments, companies and even individuals invest in R&D every day, I don't see why Google should be excluded from doing so as well, particularly when they're trying to jump-start renewable energy technologies.




Want to ask the best questions? Read Eric S. Raymond's essay "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way". TANSTAAFL!
 
Google has the right to increase the value of its company. I'm just glad they are looking at renewable energy instead of just digging another oil well. A variety of corporations do business in multiple fields, and wield a great deal of power from it; we just expect the tech geeks to only be tech geeks though.

[blue]When birds fly in the correct formation, they need only exert half the effort. Even in nature, teamwork results in collective laziness.[/blue]
 
Last time i checked, Google was a internet search company not a leading expert in energy or global economics.

They're not really an Internet search company either. The bulk of their revenue comes from advertising, and a lot of that is keyed off of search, but they've also done a fair job as a software company. And let's face it, they've got one of the highest concentrations of Ph.D.s of any company in the US. They've been pushing the boundaries of computer science forward for years, and I'm confident that they can do the same to other industries.
 
The way IT awareness is growing these days I see a great IT inviront in at least 60% ofthe world
 
Since Google is already fairly influential, I think it is good that they are using their considerable influence to back efforts such as these.

Most companies with such an influence (in the US anyway) seem content to use this influence to find ways to increase profit (at the expense of the planet or others). Sure, there may be some selfish motives involved here (For one, Google has got to be a major consumer of energy, and any future greenhouse gas legislation could have a major impact on their operations), but I would rather companies seek to improve their profits in this manner than in the 'screw the world and everyone else' manner that we're more accustomed to.

My question is, would it be better for Google to attempt to protect their bottom line by giving the $100 million to lobbying groups working to prevent future environmental protection legislation from passing?

[small]----signature below----[/small]
You can't fit a square data in a round table
 
Leave that up to the Exxon/Mobils of the world, Alex. Google has a better vision for their hundred mil. All the money thrown at lobbyists to stymie environmental laws is toilet paper, especially with peak oil on the horizon. It's much better spent on non-fossil energy research than on enriching K Street.

I fail to see how the solar arrays can be built without oil-based materials, though.

Phil Hegedusich
Senior Programmer/Analyst
IIMAK
-----------
Pity the insomniac dyslexic agnostic. He stays up all night, wondering if there really is a dog.
 
*sheds a tear for the poor, underfunded lobbyists reading Phil's comments ;-)

[small]----signature below----[/small]
You can't fit a square data in a round table
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor

Back
Top