Let's start with the good, shall we?

We encourage IMT readers to check out this recent Business Week article about pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J). It's an in-depth example of how a big manufacturer is taking a proactive stance on reducing emissions while reaping business benefits from their innovation and hard work. Keep in mind that the pharmaceutical industry isn't known for it's high emissions output, which makes J&J's accomplishments all the more commendable. Consider this snippet and you'll see what I mean:

The pharmaceutical and medical-products maker pledged that by 2010 it would reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 7 percent from 1990's level, regardless of how fast the company itself grew. J&J not only has hit its target five years early — by year end 2005, it already had reduced its CO2 tonnage by 11 percent — but the company has become an alternative-energy leader, generating power from everything from landfill methane to acres of solar panels to oil-rich poppy seeds. By being smart about its enviro-investments, J&J has boosted profits as well.

The entire article is a laundry list of accomplishments. One of the most inventive ones is summed up here:

One of J&J's more far-fetched projects is in Mountain View, Calif., where it has a research-and-development complex. The company just flipped the switch on the last of three 1-megawatt generators that burn methane emitted from a garbage dump 1.5 miles away. Previously, the waste gas was simply burned off in a flare. Now, the methane supplies 75 percent of the site's electricity, plus hot water and steam for heat and use in the facility's labs.

J&J makes it look pretty easy, don't they? So does the Port of Vancouver, who will begin fueling its trucks and heavy equipment this month with diesel comprised of 20 percent soybean oil. Out-of-control fuel costs made it an easy decision, as biodiesel was selling for less than regular diesel. Port managers expect to see a 20 percent to 50 percent reduction in hydrocarbon emissions with the change to biodiesel.

The port's fuel switch also means bragging rights to become the first in the Northwest to handle bulk shipments of biodiesel. Carson Oil recently finalized a deal with an Iowa producer to buy up to 15 million gallons of pure soy-based biodiesel annually for its customers. The port expects to use about 10,000 gallons of biodiesel annually to fuel a fleet of 17 diesel-powered vehicles.

OK, now it's time to get ugly. Surprise, surprise, it's ExxonMobil on the receiving end of some bad press as this Earth Vision piece points out. In a polluted, oil-tainted nutshell, here's the deal…

Seventeen leading U.S. pension fund and other institutional investors controlling $658 billion in assets are pushing for a face-to-face meeting with independent members of the ExxonMobil board of directors as a result of growing financial world concerns that ExxonMobil is "a company that fails to acknowledge the potential for climate change to have a profound impact on global energy markets, and which lags far behind its competitors in developing a strategy to plan for and manage these impacts."

Ouch!

According to Connecticut State Treasurer Denise L. Nappier, "ExxonMobil is making a massive bet -- with shareholders' money -- that the world's addiction to oil will not abate for decades, even as its competitors are taking significant steps to prepare for a rapidly changing energy environment. As investors, we are concerned that ExxonMobil is not sufficiently preparing for 'tomorrow's energy' and runs the risk of lagging significantly behind its rivals. As shareholders, we need to meet with the ExxonMobil board directly, to learn how it plans to safeguard long-term shareholder value in light of the serious challenges -- and opportunities -- presented by climate change."

Ouch, ouch!

A new report entitled , Corporate Governance and Climate Change: Making the Connection, by research firm Investor Responsibility Research Center (IRRC), rates 100 companies, including 20 companies in the oil sector, against a 14-point best-practice checklist. ExxonMobil received only 35 points out of a possible 100 in this analysis, again falling well behind its competitors.

OK, this is getting downright embarrassing. Do ExxonMobil stockholders have the right to rage against the machine? Are leading-edge manufacturers like J&J as green as they claim? We'd like to hear from you.