Dell, Inc. (NASDAQ: DELL) is joining the eco-group of corporate citizenry in a larger way by stating this week that it will be reducing the carbon output effects of its global operations by the end of 2008. What does this mean? Well, Dell will be tallying up all of its greenhouse emissions from all plants and facilities around the globe. It will then measure the effect of all those emissions and will develop a plan to reduce and eventually eliminate them all at some point.

In addition to the eventual elimination of greenhouse gases from factories, the computer maker will also become more energy efficient and will power operations in some areas with renewable power sources. Currently, renewable power sources popular with consumers and businesses alike include solar power and wind power.

Now, in many cases, these ecological statements are lip service for the press along with the added benefit of good PR. But, as competition intensifies, some companies actually turn "going green" into a competitive advantage while remaining competitive at a pure business level. If you were an ecologically conscious consumer deciding between a Dell "green" PC and one from competitor Acer -- with similar prices and performance -- which would you choose? Consumers are where it's at right now when it comes to PC purchases, if I'm not mistaken.

The problem so often seen is that companies really making a difference in trying to help the planet don't market those efforts to the purchasing customers, whether they be consumers or businesspeople. Dell has a chance here to make itself well-known as the "green" PC company -- I hope the company doesn't let the chance fall through the cracks.

BP plc (ADR) (NYSE: BP), the oil giant that markets itself as environmentally friendly, has learned that it's best to practice what you preach.

After a month of controversy over the planned $3.8 billion expansion of its Whiting, Ind., refinery -- and how much extra pollution would enter Lake Michigan as a result -- BP said it will not increase the amount of pollutants flowing out of the refinery into the lake. The company had applied for and received a new permit from the state of Indiana allowing it to dump more pollutants -- 1,584 pounds of ammonia per day (a 54% increase from the old limit) and 4,925 pounds of suspended solids (a 35% increase). The solids are tiny sludge particles that pass through water-treatment filters. The permit has been controversial ever since the Chicago Tribune reported about it in mid-July.

Environmental groups, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, the U.S. House of Representatives and Illinois Senator Dick Durbin all pressured BP to stick to its old pollution limits. Opponents gathered 100,000 petition signatures against BP's plans. Lake Michigan is the source of drinking water for Chicago and many other communities and also attracts many sport fishermen. The Whiting refinery is only about 18 miles south of Chicago and is the largest refinery in the Midwest and the fourth-largest in the nation. The expansion would boost output by 30 to 90% at the 400,000-barrel-a-day refinery, which processes Canadian heavy crude.

BP says it will explore ways to expand the refinery without increasing pollution. BP made the right decision to pull back from its pollution plans, but I wonder why they didn't think ahead of time about how the issue would play in public. Indiana can share some of the blame: Their permit appears to have allowed BP to violate the Clean Water Act and it also exempts BP from tough limits on mercury pollution until 2012. Score one for the citizens of Chicagoland in protecting their water supply.

Hong Kong, the archetype for the most free form of capitalism, has an after-effect of such rapid growth: Pollution. Hong Kong's air pollutant concentrations are now 200% above the norms set by the World Health Organization, according to The Economist.

Hong Kong has been attempting to blame China for its environment woes, but a more recent study shows the economic powerhouse's problems are self-inflicted. The cause is from the usual suspects -- cars, ships and coal-fired power plants.

Hong Kong has taken the first step in evaluating the causes for pollution by hiring more credible firms to do the work. Why? The answer is business. Hong Kong is becoming increasingly known as a less desirable place to work, leading to much higher salaries to attract talented workers. Unless the pay is big, experienced execs do not want to go there.

Business is now forcing Hong Kong to go green, expect this to happen in other areas of the world as well.

In a move reminiscent of the tobacco lawsuits against Philip Morris years ago, the State of California has sued General Motors Corporation (NYSE: GM), Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F), Toyota Motor Corporation (ADR) (NYSE: TM), Daimler Chrysler AG (NYSE: DCX), Honda Motor Co. Ltd (ADR) (NYSE: HMC) and Nissan Motor Co. The theory is that the car companies created a "public nuisance" that will cost the state in infrastructure and health expenses. What the state will seek in damages is not clear.

At first blush, it would appear that these claims would eventually be no more successful than the smokers' suits were. The state had the power to set emissions standards or even to ban the sale of cars by manufacturers that built cars that did not fit criteria set by the state. Since the California legislature never took those steps, it will probably be difficult to claim monetary awards to offset the state's costs.

It is also likely that the issue of whether the cars accounted for all of the health and structural damage would be difficult to prove. Factories and other sources can also be tagged for producing toxic gas.

What the suit does do is open a Pandora's box of legal costs for the car companies, especially if other states follow California's lead. As Altria and other tobacco companies discovered, even winning cases can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. There was a time when Altria's legal costs were over $1 million a day.

Even if the car companies win against claims like those that have been brought by California, they could lose. The industry is not in any shape to shoulder that distraction or costs of litigation across a number of states.

Douglas McIntyre is a partner at 24/7 Wall St.