Google has declared its goal to provide renewable energy which is cheaper than coal.
Is this philanthropy, marketing spin or just good business sense?
Google has issued a press release outlining its new strategic initiative to develop electricity from renewable energy sources that will be cheaper than electricity produced from coal.
Google.org, Google’s philanthropic wing, discusses the motives and the methods that it is looking to use to achieve this, including partnerships with esolar and makanipower. Google.org has also been providing updates on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali and is very hot on climate change, but Google is a company with shareholders. Google is only talking about hundreds of millions, whereas the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has an asset fund approaching forty billion dollars, but that is coming from private individuals, predominantly the Gates and Warren Buffett, not from shareholders.
Now I am not suggesting that this is not good publicity for Google, because clearly it is, but I don’t think it is fair to accuse the company of being socially conscious simply as an exercise in spin. Equally though, I cannot imagine any board convincing shareholders of a purely philanthropic enterprise.
Whatever the motives, I feel that Google’s stance is extremely laudable, but what could Google’s motives be? Where is the commercial advantage in a renewable fuel which is cheaper than coal? I mean, after all, would anyone really want to buy that?
Tags: Google