Green issues are no longer on the business fringe but have grown into a strategic issues in the boardroom. Companies have pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserve energy. How are businesses using Green initiatives as a critical part of the corporate strategy? How is Green changing the way in which companies develop and manufacture products? What is the short-term impact and long-term business benefits of the Green initiatives?

Abstract

The session explores some of the recent challenges and future issues that are going to be faced with in the 'Green movement' in terms of climate change, reusable chemicals and other concerns in their marketplace.The panelists presented the business side of this controversial but socially responsible issue and how they are accepting and implementing the environmental friendly practices. Dr Nyati suggested that future innovations would happen because of environment, health and safety reasons.

Discussion

Brian Pereira: We're here to talk about quite an interesting topic, but highly controversial and a fairly complex topic which we have called green. This in most people's mind can range from everything from renewable energy and environmental pollution to CO2 trading and emissions and some of the climate change problems that have been on the forefront of newspapers and televisions. As business leaders we should look at leadership positions and at least have a point of view in how we're going to deal with some of the concerns that have been raised. Green issues are no longer on the business fringe but have grown into a strategic issue in the boardroom. Companies have consciously decided to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and conserve energy. I request the panelists to give their perspective on what green means. That can be from an environment perspective, it can also be from a business perspective. What are some of the recent challenges that they find and some of the future issues that they are going to be faced with in this green movement in terms of climate change, reusable chemicals and other concerns in their marketplace.

KP Nyati: I don't think that we're getting into the new world, in fact we are going back to the old world which used to be green, and we are coming back to where we started from. Having said that I don't think we're prepared to forsake the use of modern technology, modern products and services which we didn't have in the past, and the challenge really is not becoming green. The challenge is - how do I produce more from less, that is the green mantra number one. When I say produce more using less, we're talking about producing that functional utility because of which the customer buys a product or a service. The second mantra which I would say which is a huge pressure point on many industries is why we have to discharge anything into the landfill or the environment. The short point I'm making here - can we not get every resource that we buy because nothing comes free to us back into the economical. That is the second challenge. The third challenge to my mind is - can we use more of renewables in place of non-renewables, more of environmentally acceptable substances in place of hazardous substances or chemical products and I personally believe that it is all doable. There are examples of Indian companies who have become water positive. In fact they harvest more water than they consume in their entire operations. They are carbon positive. They are now on their way to become zero solid waste discharge company. All these mantras in the short run look good challenging, but in the long run not only help us make our enterprise green and sustainable but they make a lot of business sense. That's the direction in which I would like to see our industries moving into.

Brian Pereira: Mr.Conley, would you like to maybe follow on and talk about what drives organizations to follow this path that Mr.Nyati has talked about, in terms of doing the extra mile without government regulation or any serious, visible threat to society.

Gary Conley: First I just want to say that there is a heck of lot of green in going green. When we had started Solfocus - we started on a basis of pure economics and not on it's a great feel good. Certainly we have serious problems about the world right now with the global warming and so forth. We approached the problem for energy in this case from a pure economics stand point. We're trying to produce electricity on a competitive basis with fossil fuels without the use of any subsidies, without Feed-in tariffs, without tax breaks and so on and so forth. Yesterday I was reading an Indian newspaper and they announced the approval of release for 68 Gigawatts of new coal production for India, coal fired electricity rather for India. The cost of coal to India has gone up by something in the order of 50% in the last year alone. Transportation cost is also pretty high. Something else about coal fired plants or any kind of steaming electricity plant that people don't realize is that they consume 850 gallons for every megawatt of the plant size. So in this case, they use a lot more than that much of water but 850 gallons per megawatt is lost to the atmosphere in evaporation as the cooling process. So it comes to 58 million gallons every hour that those 68 gigawatts through the coal plants you are going to consume. So that is competing with people, with agriculture, with industry, everybody else. Now in that very same newspaper, there was another article which stated that total water supplies in India were grossly overestimated by almost 88 percent, so India has far less water than they thought they had. Hence all the plans had to be redrawn. Water has become one of the most critical diminishing resources on the planet and the people that are hurt worst are really at the bottom of the pyramid. Now at the bottom of the pyramid, those people are also responsible for most of the population and the population growth on the planet. It's been shown that if you bring your GDP up per capita up to a certain level, and start going for that negative population growth it happens very quickly, it's not generational, it can happen actually in a matter of just a few decades. The numbers that they say that the world would stabilize at from today's population it could go down one to one- third of today's population, drop to two billion people. Two billion people, that would be a lot less of resources out there required. It would be a much more sustainable planet.

Brian Pereira: We are seeing quite a lot of the aging population causing other concerns from an environment perspective. Mr.Tiley, you had a controversial view about this topic. You want to share that with us.

David Tiley: Celestica is a $9 billion global manufacturing company and we've got about 45 plants throughout the globe and operate in almost every geography. Our company is really changing to wherever we have gone from just a pure contract manufacture to where we are really helping our customers solve time-to-market and warranty cost problems and in that we've really taken great pride in our technology leadership because the company actually spun out of IBM which is what our heritage is. We have introduced new product solutions, a joint venture with HCL, to create solutions for customers cradle to grave. This whole process of green initiative started in 1999 for the company, fifteen folks were identified and put on this job and they were on it for almost that entire time. And as we have gone through that whole kind of process, it's been really fascinating. I came into the company in 2005 as an enterprise software guy and I will never forget the first presentation from our CTO - my job has been to try and help reinvent the company and he says to me, " is Green services right? This is Y2K all over again." Essentially as we went through that- what's the one fundamental thing that's different between Y2K and between what we call Green services today. If you think about it, there is one really big difference. Y2K came and within ten seconds of the next century, we knew that a worker did it not and what's really fascinating about this is it continues to evolve, legislation continues to change. So it's really difficult to stand on top of that which is one of the big things that have been different from this perspective. We're really viewed in the whole EMS industry as the thought leader and the implementation leader of the whole green services area. We created a whole suite of tools, and of consulting services that help customers to migrate to the row house world and we have saved them millions and millions of dollars of inventory through this process of helping them to go from a to b. Company has benefited us too through the turnaround. What do we learn from this - a gentleman used this analogy that God created the world in seven days, I think the truth of it is that he created it in six days and then what did he do, he said he just sat back and said it is good and then he rested and probably on that day of rest reflected on what he did in those six days. And I think that's very similar to where we're now. The one thing we are doing it differently now is we will need to work with our OEM customers and with ourselves as an industry to help influence lawmakers in these areas. I live in the United States and things like global warming have been become almost a religious issue. As I sit back and look at this, I think we have to be responsible to think bigger picture here - I read Time magazine which had a big article on global warming a couple of months ago and when I look back ten years ago the same cover of the same magazine was on global cooling. So you're seeing these things and there are mixed messages. There really have to be ways, and not get caught up in terms of the ways that exist today, which says you have to be environmentally friendly or something is wrong with you, and we have a responsibility but the results of this responsibility I think to make sure was sitting back and really viewing the facts- not let this be a political kind of discussion or an emotional, or both, and really sit back and think what do we do here for this next phase. For us who are overseeing, we'll go to work harder to collaborate with government agencies so that they really understand this issue to where they are really more informed and hopefully make the right legislation going forward.

Audience: Carbon credits - I will emit as much as I want to on one side of the world and someone is going to plant trees on the other side of the world. Want to just get an understanding a bit more on what is this all about and is it going to really solve the problem or is it more of a diversion to avoid doing some of the work which you are talking about fixing it at the core.

KP Nyati: Globally it is recognized that whatever greenhouse gases particularly CO2 that you emit out is largely responsible for climate change which is for real. This is what global community agreed to. Developing world argued that 80% of the greenhouse gases are emitted by the developed world, so you take the initiative of cutting it now. That's how Kyoto protocol was hammered. What Kyoto protocol simply says that developed countries which are listed in annex one are supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.20% over 1990 level. Whatever was the emission in 1990 by the year 2008-12 which is called the first commitment period, you reduce it by 5.20%. They could do the action at home, reduce it that right there in their own countries but what was hammered out in negotiations in Kyoto protocol was that there would be three flexible mechanisms. One of them happens to be the CDM(Clean Development Mechanism)- what it simply says is that since global warming or climate change is a global problem it doesn't matter where the GAG emissions are getting reduced, but they must get reduced. So the developing country enterprises could reduce it and depending on to the extent to which they reduce, the can get the Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) from CDM executive board and these CERs could be sold to those enterprises in annex one countries who have the quota to reduce. Now at what price it gets sold or purchased depends on the market forces. But the trigger for carbon market to get developed is this buying and selling because of the quota driven business. That is how you get the carbon credit if I am reducing my energy or fuel consumption here. I hope this clarifies as to why somebody is selling CERs and others are buying.

Gary Conley: We see it as a pretty big opportunity, CFCs reduce this way a number of things, the mechanisms been used before to a great success, in fact many of those programs accelerated and they have achieved their targets. It does help the industry if you spurge some amount to adopt your technology that reduces or eliminates the emission of CO2 for say, energy production in our case and also reduce solar or thermal that creates steam which you can use for heating and cooling. Heating and electricity generation are the two largest single sources of CO2 production by man on the planet. What's interesting here is that in the developing world, the countries that have the lowest or minimal pollution controls versus some place like California where they are pretty tied on a lot of places in the Europe, they are the most to gain because if you place a factory in Russia or a power plant in Russia or somewhere else with hardly any emission standards you are going to take a whole larger bite out of the CO2 emission target. So it's a win-win game, so if you reduce some in Russia it's going to help here in Mexico, and it's going to help you in Latin America.

Brian Pereira: Dave, from a Celestica point of view.

David Tiley: From a Celestica point of view, really can't comment because we do it through our OEMs and those business models are all something proprietary that we obviously don't discuss.

Brian Pereira: From your perspective in terms of Carbon trading do you see it as an additional cost to your business or is it borne?

David Tiley: I think it's a cost but it's an opportunity as well.

Brian Pereira: What are your views in terms of environmental concerns and the costs to comply?

David Tiley: From our perspective it's really changed everything, from the way we design products and now the way we are designing for recycle. It used to be the big buzz word - design for servers, design for a supply chain, and now it's also design for recycling. We are working on it but again we are looking at it from cradle to grave now. The thing that concerns us is just from a pure manufacturing perspective is that this industry has print circuit boards, we have 50 years of data on reliability with lead soldering as an example. Well, now we have about five years with non lead and honestly none of us really know what that reliability issues could be 3,4,5 years from now. And that's where we've really got to work together to try and understand this and leverage as much of this because it is a brave new world out there and we don't have the data from a long-term viability. We are working through this and that serves as a challenge to make a contribution.

KP Nyati: From industry and environment perspective I will simply say that compliance need not cost though it does. It's left to you as a matter of choice whether you use preventive route or mitigation route. If you have your waste waters and then you are treating in an affluent treatment plant it is going to cost you additional for compliance. Start asking yourself in the first place why the water that you discharged is getting polluted and my concern is it is getting polluted because something which I purchased did not use efficiently is getting into the waste water. That is where the preventive strategy starts. That is where you come back to the drawing board - can I design a product in a manner which we can use more efficiently. Let me perhaps use a different term than what David used cradle to grave is an old concept. People are now talking about cradle to cradle. In doing so, you don't have to necessarily buy the same resource you can reuse, recycle. It goes into the market, delivers the functional utility, you get back perhaps at lesser cost than otherwise you would be buying and therefore it is a matter of choice and all those innovations are coming and are driven by regulations. Proactiveness from the industry side would also give a very sound and responsible image in the industry and I believe this is what we should be doing instead reacting. Let's show the way. We have the technology, we have the creativity, and we have the capacity to innovate. We created the problem, and we have to solve it. We have to find a solution and that's where you can make a difference whether the compliance will cost or we make you more money.

Gary Conley: If you're emitting all these things, that's just another form of waste which means your operational processes are not efficient, so it's an opportunity to improve your processes. What it has another effect of doing is if you are going to be fined or charged for CO2 emissions, you are going to use less- you are going to conserve. In each one of these problems are opportunities and you got to view them in that and that is exactly what we're doing. We're looking at the opportunities here and it may displace another industry, we're going to cause some problems, there's going to be little disruption out there. I watched Korea, I watched Thailand and Taiwan- the first thing they got is rather ancient factories for these cars with really bad pollution and so on and so forth and those places in just ten years the air turned opaque and you cannot see more than a 100 yards. And that lasted for a while and then their economies came up and they realized that this really stinks we are going to clean that up and they have cleaned it up. Taiwan's a lot cleaner today than it was ten years ago. Korea too, they have half gone on the clean side and they are realizing it's far cheaper.

KP Nyati: As we go along, all the innovation that would come would happen because of environment, health and safety reasons. In fact the future business risks are going to emerge from these areas plus of course those social expectations and aspirations of the people. So in a sense everyone in this industry must work from the point of view of managing risks, should be able to identify potential risks, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years down the road and we start working proactively now, not merely because all of a sudden we wake up and say let's start the green initiative, because it might make sense, no it's by design and we know what is going to be the problem tomorrow and we are addressing or at least beginning to think of addressing the problem now. We need not wait for these multilateral global environmental agreements. Let's work and demonstrate the leadership. I see no other way if industry wants to prosper and that's the way I look at it.

Brian Pereira: What about the opportunity gap - opportunity for businesses to actually exploit, explore and look at some of the inconsistencies in the marketplace at the moment and turn those into viable business opportunities. Could each one if you give a comment on what those opportunities might be and some of you are involved in that already?

Gary Conley: There's an element called indium, very scarce element on the planet but we're not worried about the running out of it because currently, a lot of it is coming from the recycling fly ash from smoke stacks of coal plants. So we are actually using coal plant smoke stack waste and to recycle or recapture all that Indium and put it back into these cells now. We've got quite a nice supply there. Another opportunity is again in recycling quite a lot of things, recapturing things. So we designed our system such that it is 99.9% Aluminum and glass. Aluminum is recyclable. There is a huge amount of energy in making aluminum and there's been a lot of aluminum that has already been made, so our system from cradle to grave, we can take recycled aluminum to make that portion of our system and then the glass, there is plenty of glass out there and so we don't have an issue there, and of course when our systems do end up dying after 20-30 years whenever, the systems are very simple to take in turnaround and recycling. So there is another business there in the recycling, recapture market. What we need to do really is always just look at nature. We use bio-mimicry a lot in our designs. It doesn't take a lot of time because people have not looked at problems and issues that way before. There is opportunity to start sourcing local manufacturing, designing your products so that they can be made anywhere, not simply in the huge monolithic factories but now start making smaller factories and be able to source all your materials and resources locally. In the case of again aluminum we need high energy, well let's put those near hydroelectric plants and most other aluminum plants. So you source of all your raw materials wherever they are most efficiently and cheapest made. You reverse this whole outsourcing rather not outsourcing but centralized manufacturing, and reverse it back to where you are creating more jobs and more opportunity locally and eliminating that huge burden of costs of transportation.

KP Nyati: From the industry perspective a lot of opportunities exist and you should perhaps exploit them. Tomorrow, if everybody's convinced climate change is for real, global warming is for real, I think individually the customer would like to contribute. The result therefore is that anybody who is able to provide the same functional utility or service which a product represents, which consumes the least amount of water, least amount of energy, the least amount of carbon food print, now the customer would make a choice. They would start buying merely to make that contribution those items which create least amount of environmental burden and that's how even the businesses would get distinguished. I find all over the world most governments for their revenue tax anything mindlessly. If you believe this product is good for environment, leave it alone and don't tax it. You give a huge signal to the consumer that look, I'm not taking any revenue out of this so you better buy this. When we had that so called motor cycle revolution, Hero Honda came up with it first time and then said I'm going to give you 70km per liter and that slogan was fill it, shut it, forget it. The rival who was a well established number one lost the pedestal that's the opportunity I'm talking about because it combined environmental objective with that of the customer. That's the opportunity that one could be looking at. Create an enabling climate, create a customer pull, everything else would start happening. Don't rely too much on regulations.

David Tiley: Most of our effort has been to respond to the current legislation, to make sure that they are there to protect our customers as much as possible. Now there has been millions of dollars saved through the whole supply chain process because we're not buying you know last time buys or trying to do a mixed lead free environment. From a design perspective I talked about our big thing for customers and that is power consumption. I think for this last year, it cost more to run your servers from a power standpoint than it does to actually purchase them. So there was a transition point just last year. Again for our industry and for our design efforts around, say blade products that is a huge focus on how can we make these more energy efficient because that cost in itself has now gone over than the actual cost of procuring and implementing.

Brian Pereira: And you're finding demand from a customer perspective for those products.

David Tiley: Absolutely, it's the balance in terms of how far do you go because there is an economics to this too and that's the thing I'm trying to challenge.

Audience: Less energy in terms of applications so we're seeing a huge benefit in that and it's interesting we didn't set out that way but it has become a competitive differentiator.

David Tiley: That has really changed in the last two to three years and that is now a whole new market space and it's an evolving space now that is a competitive opportunity for people to take advantage of.

Audience: The reason I put my hand up is my business is about cows. So we have got to try and take a bit of proactive stance on that. I was interested in your comment around disruption and if we look at three sources and if we look at power, fuel and water, not only are they scarce, they are becoming scarcer; they are increasingly becoming more and more expensive. So I have got a couple of questions at the start, starting to coming together in terms of we are seeing the world potentially going to a hundred dollars and above and therefore from an economic perspective it starts giving us the focus a little bit differently in terms of pure business models in our supply chain, that's the first question. The second one was around the cost of transportation and are we now starting to see supply chains, do you believe and what sort of time do you believe we'd see supply chain really shrink, back to, closer to the point of customer from the point of view of agriculture, horticulture, or pure manufacturing.

Gary Conley: An ironic fact in the United States the cost of coal- 40% of the cost of coal is transportation cost that goes to the railroads and 40%, moving things from here to there and if you have that much labor in your process you might want to consider how you can reduce the amount of labor you need versus trying to find the cheapest labor. The root cause is probably you have a lot of opportunity for improvement in the process, not in the actually trying to reduce the cost of what you're doing despite doing it cheaper, faster. So in the transportation sector you've got to package it, you have got to wrap it, before you package it, then you have to get it there, then you have to unwrap it and you have to discard all of the wrapping materials. Coming to your first question again, that's basically the mass, the incredible mass of the existing status quo in trying to break people off of that current infrastructure and the entire huge organization built around and supported the political economy across the board. It is a bit formidable but right now we have truly the perfect storm during the political issues, the war is all over the place.

David Tiley: I would say that from a logistics standpoint, it's an interesting question for us, everyone is going to say Asia and say India for manufacturing potentially, for sure China, on you know labor and when you look at the cost of printed circuit board, when is the labor, the labor is going like this in some of those areas and in North America say it's leveled off or decreasing in some ways, as these manufacturing jobs have been lost. The one thing that's changing everything is the consumer and it's the consumer that's driving these models. So there is an opportunity where we see that there is the actually the consumer driving it and there are some from a logistics standpoint because when we are ship all of these final large assemblies, we learn to design for those common platforms, there are huge cost benefits in doing that in terms of from a supply chain standpoint and the use of capital and then we customize to specific customer requirements at the end, that's going to be in local and in geography. The same thing will be in reverse when we're recycling and repairing that also needs to be there because of the time frame. We are so dependent on these devices that we can't live without them, so we have to be close to them so that we can turn them quickly.

Gary Conley: If you go somewhere where the labor is really cheap, it's supporting a really bad habit saying when it is so cheap, I don't have to design a product for manufacturability, I don't have to design my product for the least amount of labor because it's so cheap. So it's actually contriving to the problem. It helps you with the market again if you want to sell a product; you get a lot of political goodwill if you put up a factory in somebody's town.. If you're using two dollar a day or a week labor in China and now certainly have to do hundred dollars a day or hundred dollars a week labor somewhere else, that could really hit your bottom line, you cannot be competitive, but the Europeans have been doing it for years. They have an edge on you. How are you going to compete that market, so again there is opportunity across the board.

Brian Pereira: One of the points covered was now we should start thinking of adding the cost of transportation to the cost of taking manufacturing to low labor environment and see what that does to the actual final cost of the product. The second one is don't shy away from good product design.

KP Nyati: It's not just the cost in fact from environmental perspective you'll be forced not to transport. There are bio-technological solutions. In fact one of our laboratories in India has developed a consortia of microbes that can remove ash and sulphur from the coal. Now you get the so called clean coal. Given that there is 40% ash in our coal, 40% of the trash need not be transported leading to both direct economic and environmental benefits. So all that innovation would happen and if all prices hit through the roofs, I guess the innovation cycle would become shorter and there the innovations would be far greater in numbers.

Gary Conley: In California, Chevron is the largest single natural gas customer in the state of California. They consume, they spend around 600 to 700 million dollars a year on natural gas and what they do is they take the fossil fuel and they burn it. They boil water and make steam. Then they inject the steam into the oil wells to get the oil out pretty well. So what we're doing is we have the have a solar thermal another type of a product we have where we have the water to about 200 degrees steam, with evacuated tubes that is the sun hits them, they heat the water, it becomes steam, they can inject it in their well and get their oil out. But again another way you can take advantage of that.

Audience: There is a two part question - one is the adoption of new technology in automobiles I heard that you can have a 450 dollar catalytic quality converter and it is a near zero emission. Honda has come out with that model but General Motors is fighting it because they think if the cost goes up by $150.00 they won't be able to sell the car. I happen to be one who would gladly pay for $150.00 and have a near zero emission. So how fast do you think these trends, the consumer will change they are willing to pay quote and quote reasonable cost and the second one is are we really going to make it before all the ice melts at the polar caps or we will change our ways and it won't be that bad.

KP Nyati: To be honest with you, I am still not convinced of the need of putting catalytic converters. It is still end of the pipe solution. In fact, we need to get back to the drawing board-can we make our engine more efficient and less pollutant. Second change is why we always have to think of gasoline to be burnt in the engine. Tomorrow you will not need catalytic converter if my car is running on hydrogen for instance. Innovation would change the value proposition. The second point that you were making in fact even the mode of transportation would undergo a change. From being in the business of producing cars we will be in the business of providing what we call sustainable mobility -the business of taking you from point X to point Y in a comfortable, affordable, as and when you want kind of a manner and that is the transition which has to take place and my sense says, believe me, given the limitations on the land that we have all over the world I don't think you will have space to build the highways. Maybe flying chairs would be the solution.

Audience: Coming from Europe, I would be especially interested to know what would be the specific Indian perspectives, either from a political perspective or a business perspective on these environmental issues and whether India will see itself as a potential leader in the future on some techniques, technologies, development policies, whatever.

KP Nyati: In terms of government policies and regulations right now we are in the mess. Environmentally speaking, not that we have not made progress, we have, but as I said no policy and regulation could be doing the crystal ball gazing as to what India should be doing ten years or fifteen years down the road. You can simply say that's where we want to reach- how, we do not know, but even where do you want to reach is not defined. From our perspective, India would become a hub for small cars and hopefully driven on sustainable fuel. I see already a lot of research in our research laboratories in this direction. It is just that economy has been booming, government of India gets a lot of revenue. Therefore they allocate it to the laboratories and most of the laboratories do not know what to do with the unexpected money that they are getting. That is where we are at the moment.

Concluding remarks by the panelists

David Tiley: At the end of the day, simply work on every day because number one - it's what our customers want, number two - there is legislation that dictates it. So we have to continue to innovate, to lead that because if we are following, I don't think there is a future for our company or any other. I think there may be a market for someone who doesn't want to pay the extra $400.00 and that may, but I don't know whether that would be sustainable. I guess it could be or it wouldn't be in the long term and you better figure out other ways. We have got to get involved and we just can't let other people come and dictate what our impression should be and that's the thing I think while we've got to be involved with our customers, with the lawmakers to really influence the direction in this. The thing that scares me when I see how much effort and outcome every day goes into these compliance type of issues and how we can innovate around this and then I roll that forward to think of a congressman sitting in Washington DC trying to grasp the complexity of this stuff to make a law, and that's kind of scary, honestly, and I think that's where all for of us have got to get involved and we can't just make sure that someone else is doing it because I don't think that's going to work going forward.

KP Nyati: I would simply say that it's just a one liner - if you can lay your hands on a book called natural capital by Amory Lovins, believe me it will really motivate, insight you for the kind of changes that we environmentalists believe would come in the next 25, 30 or 50 years. If you don't get that book just hit Amazon.com and you will find it.

Gary Conley: My favorite quote from Amory Lovins is that "US is going metric inch by inch" semi industry in the 1983, Silicon Valley and it was just the Wild West, nothing but opportunity. It is the Wild West right now, this whole industry. You want a hundred mile per gallons car, it already exists, they plug in hybrids, and a lot of people are modifying their cars, and adding extra batteries in them. In California three different companies which are being formed to do that. Tesla was formed for an all electric cars thing and off to our South, we found the Global energy corp.- I think the biggest solar company in the world. Their labor cost is pretty high. They find ways to make tremendous profit out of this opportunity. So this whole green movement speaks of nothing but opportunity and doesn't take a lot of vision to be able to see it.

Brian Pereira: For such a difficult topic today and quite a controversial and complex one we have had three very good speakers who have hopefully given you some insight on how to look at and turn what might be something that is a reactive problem into something of an opportunity that we can only do two things- one is to try and improve the way we impact our environment and second, address customer needs for which at the end of the day we're here for.