A recent article in the Wall Street Journal stated that "A byproduct of the Bush administration's repudiation of the Kyoto treaty on global warming has been that many big American corporations are approaching the greenhouse-gas problem and a host of other environmental issues more aggressively than the government."

a) I'm shocked that the WSJ would imply anything potentially negative about President Bush. Is the WSJ no longer conservative? Did I miss a memo?

b) Bush admits that "Our country, the United States, is the world's largest emitter of man-made greenhouse gases; we account for almost 20 percent of the world's man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account for about one-quarter of the world's economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions." He adds, of course, that other countries are responsible for the other 80%. In that same article, it is mentioned Bush's contention that China and India are exempt from Kyoto, and "The Small Business Survival Committee applauded Bush's speech as showing "real leadership," citing his condemnation of the treaty as "unrealistic," "arbitrary" and "not based on science."

c) According to the National Resources Defense Council, "The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated and signed in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the 1992 treaty signed by George W. Bush's father and ratified by the Senate. The climate convention requires all countries, including developing countries, to establish programs to address greenhouse gas emissions and to report on progress."

d) Again, depending upon where you look, one can find apparently credible references on both sides, stating that either Bush stands by his rejection of Kyoto, or has admitted erring in that position. Hey, everyone's got an agenda.

Thankfully, some U.S. corporations have for years gone beyond politics and that which is legislated. Xerox, for example, says that it has "managed environmental performance in its manufacturing facilities to an internal benchmark known as Waste-Free Factory. Our commitment to the goals of this initiative, along with global implementation of an ISO 14001-compliant environmental management system, has driven environmental performance improvements over the last decade."

Reviews of plant designs and procedures and subsequent actions resulted in a "35% reduction of reportable spills," while new spills have been less severe and cleaned up more rapidly and effectively. Other accomplishments that the company touts include:

• An 87% reduction in air emissions between 1991 and 1996.
• A 20% decrease from 2002 to 2003 in the 68 tons of chemicals and particulates released to the air.
• A 96% reduction in dicholomethane emissions to air due to improved manufacturing processes and implementation of state-of-the-art controls.

Particularly impressive is Xerox's development and implementation of a "…comprehensive process for taking back end-of-life products from customers in the early 1990s, establishing a remanufacture and parts reuse program that fully supports our Waste-Free initiatives. All Xerox-designed product models introduced in 2003 have been developed with remanufacturing in mind." The company estimates "…that in 2003, energy savings from parts reuse totaled 13 million therms (390,000 megawatt hours) — enough energy to light more than 315,000 U.S. homes for a year."

"As a result [of design for reuse programs], equipment returned to Xerox at end-of-life can be remanufactured — rebuilt — to as-new performance specifications, reusing 70 to 90 percent by weight of machine components, while meeting performance specifications for equipment with all new parts."

While I will not portray one company as a Manufacturing God, environmental or otherwise, Xerox certainly shines as an example of striving to do what's right, not just what's required.