Slashdot Mirror
Green Is In At CES, But Is It Real?
OTL writes "You've heard the talk of 'Green' throughout the whole of 2008, but the way a product affects the environment will be a huge consideration in consumer buying habits, at least when it comes to gadgets.
But, the CEA report also said that consumers are very skeptical about the green claims made by high-tech firms for their products. More than 38 percent of those interviewed by the CEA said they were confused by green product claims and 58 percent wanted to know the specific attributes that prompted hi-tech firms to label their products green."
We should all eat it. It's the greenest soup.
It's a buzzword. It'll get people to buy your product regardless because it catches attention, along with terms like "This new design is very Web 2.0." Want to know more? Watch Penn & Teller's: Bullshit!, they have an episode on Going Green.
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
58 percent wanted to know the specific attributes that prompted hi-tech firms to label their products green
#00ff00 maybe?
Thank you, I'll be here all week! Try the veal.
I don't think so. It might at best be a secondary concern. I doubt in the current financial climate people are going to be stressing green in their purchases when they might be able to get a less-green alternative for less.
The green practices of high tech companies are how to properly recycle and make re-use of electronics is confusing to most people, considering that many still believe that these products are impossible to reuse. Anything more complicated than paper in the green bin, is mystifying to most people. I don't blame anyone for being skeptical of those claims.
What, do they paint it green? Is it because it consumes less electricity? Is it because the circuit boards are made out of cardboard and bio-degradable silly putty? Or is this whole "green" movement nothing but an excuse for the boomers to try to look responsible in the waning years of their power, covering up the gross excesses of the past few decades, living amongst superfluous abundance while the rest of us watched the economy go straight to hell? These people jabber about carbon footprints, kilowatts, and they act like this is hard science. Most of the terms these "greenies" use are vague and could be defined many ways. People think driving an electric car is green -- but then fail to take into account that those high performance batteries are highly toxic and need replaced every few years. And the aluminum required to build those cars to be light enough to be practical requires huge amounts of electricity -- and most of that energy is created by burning coal.
The problem with the green movement, and any product that caters to it, is two-fold: One, lack of total picture. There is no objective way to compare two products in a similar category in a cradle-to-grave capacity. Fundamentally, it can't yet be done because we don't know what's more or less harmful than the next thing -- does a ton of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere equate to "more harm" than several ounces of CFCs? Without a way to make a direct comparison, or have a way to objectively measure a products "green performance", calling something green is meaningless. The second problem is... Many green products are of inferior quality and are higher priced than their non-green counterparts.
Why is this sham movement getting attention in the technical community? I'm not saying this as a troll, I honestly want to know -- how can you people as engineers and scientists look at this and say that any aspect of this so-called movement is objective?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Is this really the case?
Honestly, I don't know anyone that takes into consideration how 'green' something is before they purchase it...especially gadgets.
I know there is a sizable minority growing that is concerned about everything 'green', but, really...in the general public, while they may even be vocally in favor of 'green' things...does it really affect their everyday life and their purchases?
Those green advertising dollars are certainly lost on me...I buy stuff I want because I want it, without regard to greenness or anything else.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Will it blend?
There is a big difference between what people interpret as being green. If you believed Greenpeace, we would all be back in the stone-age since everything has some type of impact on the nature. If you believe Apple and set it as a standard then all of our stuff would be more expensive, in line with the Apple products, no more $200 laptops. If you believe Dell 'green' is everything that is painted white (or black) in order to attract/detract heat or other types of radiation from certain components.
Then there are the politicians trying to define what is green and if you believe them, selling vouchers of cubic meters of carbon exhaust to 3rd world countries is their form of becoming 'green' while China and other 3rd world companies are becoming burial grounds for and are 'recycling' valuables from our dead gadgets in what they call 'green' initiatives.
A few years ago (60's-80's) becoming more environmental friendly was burning trash and putting exhaust pipes of factories higher in the sky effectively moving our problem higher. Now we've gone to burying our trash, effectively moving our problem again.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Like Energy Star?
Until they add the "eco" prefix. Nothing truely good for gaia comes without the "eco."
Uh... would that be a bad thing or a good thing? Since this would presumably be specific to advertising, it's not exactly doublespeak.
"...the specific attributes that prompted hi-tech firms to label their products green."
There is only one attribute needed to label a product 'green'.
The ability to boost sales in so doing.
Well, let's see the track record of the biggest consumer electronics green endeavor - lead free solder, enforced under ROHS. It replaces a very small amount of material (lead) which was 85% post consumer recycled content, with silver and tin which are mined from coral reefs. True, the waste when the product is thrown away (in a regulated, lined landfill in a rich green nation) is less toxic. Coral reefs and rain forest mining is a small price to pay. Perhaps we could make even less toxic, "organic" solder from baby seal pelts.
Gently reply
With all the green stuff flying around, and some of it merely being transferring the emissions to an earlier part in the process (solar panels) or being horribly expensive (solar panels) and so on, people are getting jaded.
Also, there is a huge campaign against global climate change and selective reporting (e.g., DailyTech), never mind the man-made aspect of it, so lots of people just don't care that it matters.
In addition even recycling efforts have had negative PR - local governments getting residents to recycle, collecting it all, and shipping it off to China. Each time this happens, people think "why do I bother?!"
The best way to reduce emissions is to be thrifty - make use of what you have now, use things for longer, etc. Of course, that's not good for the economy!
From TFA:
"More than half are willing to pay a little more for 'green'," said Mr Koening. "22 percent said they were willing to pay up to 15 percent more for it."
Green as a marketing gimmick is dangerous. The general idea is that green somehow is more expensive.
White wine vinegar is a nice natural cleaner, and it's cheap. So is ammonia in water. Why spend so much money on other alternatives?
Reducing package size is green and it costs less to produce. Why increase the price if cost is lowered?
If you can recycle all of a manufacturing plant's waste within the plant, you don't need to hire waste disposal, so why increase the price of goods made at the plant?
Business is constantly trying to get people to buy crap and justify it. Many of them are using the green label to justify their price tag, which is bullshit. In economics, the price of an item is not determined by the cost of the single item, but how much it is in demand, how much supply there is, and how much people perceive it's value. Companies go green because it either saves them money, or because a government tax break or tax penalty makes it more expensive not to go green.
Do not pay more for green products, demand the current products go green and don't increase their prices. On your own, look for natural alternatives which are just as good and easy to procure, but aren't made by big name brand labels.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Give me tons of money, or I'm chopping down this frakking tree!!!!!
This is my sig.
Energy Star deals with electricity consumption in operating and standby modes. I think that this discussion is about more general "greenness". How much water is the factory polluting? How many cancer causing chemicals are present in this product? What is your recycling plan, and how many 3rd world countries does it include? Etc, etc.
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
I'm all for being a good steward of the environment (that probably gives you a good hint as to my worldview, too).
But when it comes to "green," unless we're talking about dumping pollutants into various ponds, lakes, and oceans, the primary thing that I would be interested in "green" about is monetary. Like most things.
Specifically, if it uses less electricity, power, etc., and I don't need it to use more, that's a Good Thing (tm). For example, light bulbs. Unless it's a reading light (I don't like the "weird" light when I'm reading), the electricity-saving bulbs are nice on my electricity bill. I assume the same about other large appliances, though I haven't had to buy one yet.
But the "green" craze that companies seem to be going through is kind of annoying. Sort of like the organic fad. I'm actually into the organic food stuff (read: anti-hormone, somewhat against certain GMO stuff, not a fan of ingesting pesticides, and organically grown food usually tastes better, too), but the rich-posh-styling-trendy organic thing (the typical Trader Joes or Whole Foods crowd) is silly. A trendy, posh thing is one thing; a good reason to do it is another. I prefer good reasons over trends. Fashionable organic food or fashionable "green" consumer items are usually silly and overpriced, it seems. Like most lemming-reaction trends.
exactly what I was going to say
'green' means energy, does it not?
Its usefullness anyways..
For portable devices that means battery life improvement by a factor of 10. From the 4-8 hrs for mp3 players/notebooks, etc.. to 4-8 days on a single charge.
For static equipment, server rooms, desktops, its the opposite. Squeezing more computational power at fewer watts, and less heat generated from less power being consumed.
To the parent: if you have something to say about the article, reply to the article like everybody else."
Well, the parent by AC...wasn't really on topic at all. What does pea soup have to do with this article? Funny? Maybe...
I was basically trying to take an off topic post...and steer it back to something related TO the article in question.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
that's "lite", and I believe the requirement is to incorporate a disgusting aftertaste.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
How you get a job like 'Director of Green'?
The Army reading list
The only way to make sure is to demand thorough documentation of the manufacturing process and ensure the authenticity of the documentation provided. Consumer pressure is needed to make companies deliver green products on a regular basis. They will manufacture what the buyers want. Governments are usually important customers and can lead the way on behalf of the public.
As a side note, one should also demand that the products are "fair", such as the manufacturer and subcontractors don't exploit third world countries, the workers are properly paid etc.
Unless the person has never had a computer or does not know where they can get a used one the new ones are not going to off set the energy of disposal of the old one and creation of the new one. I believe that this applies to just about any commodity.
To be really green I think that they should take in the {insert thing name here} for disposal / recycle, and show the true cost like a sticker on a hot water heater shows the energy usage.
People are way too busy patting themselves on the back driving their Prius and using their green MacBook when the landfills are full of their old SUV and Gateway notebooks.
The products folks are clamoring for to be green are because "going green" saves them money; which is really what consumers are concerned about. CFLs are huge right now because in some markets (e.g. Southern California) they are cheaper than incandescent lighting and reduce ones electric bill, even if only by a small margin. "Green" cars were in when gas was $4.00/gal, but now that prices have fallen, I'm seeing more and more 07-08 Priuses having been traded in. Those buyers weren't "true believer" green purchasers, they just felt being "green" would be cheaper in the form of lower engergy costs. When driving a 17mpg car became cheaper than the car payments on a hybrid or the maintainence (having to go to the dealer for service) folks are now unloading them (I'm car shopping and have seen a big raise in the number of used hybrids available; part of which may be that they are just becoming more common and the 3-year/car dirvers are now starting to move to their next purchase).
I think the however that a small part of them that feels like they are doing the "right thing", because it does seem when two products are the same in price and quality the green one is chosen; but it is definately secondary for most people. I'd say the best test for that was to see how many consumers would but the more expensive product that was identical except the "green" bottle was $.10 or $.50 or $1.00 more; particularly for consumer goods that don't have other buying decision reasons such as being "organic" like food.
Companies love it because like the consumer, it saves them money, particularly when they can sell the product for more money "because it is green" when it cost them less to make it, or pass the savings on to the customer and beat their competitor at the price game. It is a win-win in either scenario; and gets their foot in the door with the truly eco-conscience consumer who may never have bought form X vendor due to their environmental history. In this case, lip-service is still service.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
paying attention (that's cheap enough) to everything except the disposition of the spirit, leads j back to the greed/fear/ego based swindlers time after time.
greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.
we note that yahoo deletes some of its' (relevant) stories sooner than others. maybe they're short of disk space, or something?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_on_re_as/as_nepal_buddha_boy;_ylt=A0wNdN1I6RpJfGoBfhWs0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081106/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/meltdown_who_pays;_ylt=A2KIR3MR9hJJ3YkAGhms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081114/ap_on_re_us/obama_catholics;_ylt=A0wNdOs0AR1Jam0AfE2s0NUE
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/23/what.matters.thirst/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/28/what.matters.meltdown/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/07/atwood.debt/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
(deleted, still in google cache)http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081107/ts_alt_afp/environmentclimatewarmingatlantic_081107145344
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ApTbxRfLnscxaGGuCocWlwq7YWsA/SIG=11qicue6l/**http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/meltdown_kashkari.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_us/newspapers_islam_dvd;_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE
(some yoga & yogurt makes killing/getting killed less stressful) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_us/warrior_mind;_ylt=A0wNcw9iXutIPkMBwzGs0NUE
(the old bait & switch...your share of the resulting 'product' is a fairytail nightmare?)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_bi_ge/where_s_the_money;_ylt=A0wNcwJGwvFIZAQAE6ms0NUE
it's time to get real now. A LOT of energy/resource has been squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the
I have worked in SMT assembly and even when a business claims lead free processes, there are still _many_ reels of parts that are not. Just a little inside info. Not to mention the bags and bags of packaging for the CF connectors and the like.
I had lunch last week with a former colleague who is now working for a company that does setup and support for data centers all over the country. The conversation of course at one point went to "green computing".
He told me that the most common application for "green computing" that companies request is to help with heat management. In particular companies in climates that need regular heating are moving their datacenters to the lowest floor possible to try to re-use the heat from the servers on higher floors.
In short, a big part of "green computing" right now comes down to (moving) hot air.
Which of course many of us IT guys have been good at for many, many year already.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The prime attribute the product contains is the power of green to line the lemmings up for a walk
Just substitute "Green!" for "Fresh!" in you advertising copy and you're good to go and ready to make big bucks off consumers brainwashed by entertainment and news media.
What?
From the HennyPenny hoaxers going into business selling 'carbon offsets' to scientists needing 'consensus' and the idea that sending money to Washington will solve the the problem....what part of green sounds genuine?
Why should anyone's support of 'green' be genuine?
HOAX.
Parent is posting off-topic - it has nothing to do with pea soup - in an attempt to attract moderator attention. This is gaming the /. moderation system and it should not be tolerated. If you are uncomfortable moderating Off-topic, please use Overrated.
To the parent: if you have something to say about the article, reply to the article like everybody else.
While true that the article has nothing to do with pea soup, it has plenty to do with buying green products. Pea soup is green.
The parent post will get a +1 insightful to grant karma, and then get modded to +5 funny. As for your post, sadly we lack a -1 Joyless Whiner mod, so you will have to settle for Off-topic.
The Mod Squad
Suddenly big business is concerned about the environment? Doubtful. "Green" is only fashionable because it's a way of simultaneously having your PR people crow about saving the environment while your number crunchers are busy trying to save as much money as possible on energy consumption. If the price of energy were not rising, there would be no "green" initiatives.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
and say "oh yeah, but what about the externalities like the cost of health care when kids in the neighborhood get lead posioning from the landfill?". Then some snarky jackass cites some Penn & Teller episode that says that CRT's dont have lead in them but instead are a great source of Omega3 (liberal myth) fatty (liberal myth) acids (academic myth) and are actually healthy for children and pets (liberal myth). Then some damn hippie (nixon) jumps in and starts saying we are evil for wasting perfectly good CRT's and the Corporate Man (myth) wants us to spend money on useless LCD's (myth). Then some nerd chimes in that LCD's consume 1.3465GW less power (myth), which of course is a myth debunked on Fox & Friends (lie). Then everybody says "Fuck you" (swear) and nothing gets done. Welcome to modern US (imperialist) political debate(myth).
Our politics have gotten too divided, too tit for tat and and too bitter.
Look. Here is the deal with CRT's. We should recycle them. But right now, it is a pain in the ass for most people so instead of getting properly recycled they get dumped or left on a curb. I mean, I did the right thing once, and those assholes wanted to charge me $20 bucks to take my old TV. Screw that! Not to mention I don't own a car now and the garbage guy doesn't collect them. Lets not even get into the fact that some of these recycling companies offshore the whole process and a bunch of kids with gas masks get to burn them in open pits.
How do we solve the problem? We need to do *something* with this dinosaurs called CRT's. Dumping them into a landfill is unhealthy thanks to led and god knows what else in them. How do we do it and who pays for it?
The truly "green" products are those that aren't made to begin with.
Reducing global human population growth would go far further at conserving the environment than all this "green" nonsense combined.
Ron
The rest is fluff. Take it from a guy who been going to the trade shows since the 80s, the only thing the vast majority of the manufacturers care about is the bottom line, more so in these tough economic times. "Green" is a fashionable label that helps push a tiny bit more product, and as long as the buzz lives on the Marketing Guys will keep pimping it.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
Look at China now, that's what America was like in the 1960's.
Americas rivers in the 60's had some issues, but are nothing like the waste we see/have seen in communist countries where people have less power to intervene against the state.
Can you point to a specific river in China you are thinking of?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you have a "green" HDTV that is plasma and uses more energy than an entire household does in France, than it's not green.
But ... if you are replacing existing servers with ones that deliver more CPU per watt and don't spend most of their energy cooling a room that they heat up, that's actual green tech.
Or replacing CRTs with LED screens that have a true sleep option (not just standby).
It depends on usage. Some new fridges are twice as big but use less energy per year than the old fridges that spoil food - those are improvements.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
> ... that prompted hi-tech firms to label their products green.
Only one.
That attribute that causes some feely-types to part with more of their "green" so they can feel good about themselves for helping to save the Earth.
It's just an appeal to narcissism. Advertisers and marketers have been doing this for a long, long time.
Everyone tries to attract moderator attention more or less but posting off topic should not be tolerated because it's like someone who rushes in a conversation they didn't even listen to.
Apple calls their new unibody Macbooks "the greenest Macbook ever". That might be true relatively speaking.
But what Apple don't tell you is that they routinely ship units backwards and forwards across the Pacific Ocean in an attempt to prioritise for US demand.
For example, a New Zealand Apple retailer told my associate that Apple will often recall all NZ stock back to the USA if they run low on stock there. So this means the "green" Macbook you buy in, say, New York City may have flown across the Pacific at least once, maybe even twice or more. I wonder if new stock in NZ comes from California or somewhere in South-East Asia?
It's interesting because Apple make the point that their smaller packaging requires less aircraft space and therefore less aviation fuel - but if they send these things backwards and forwards around the planet, what good is that really?
The annoying thing for New Zealand customers is that the entire country can suddenly run out of stock even though the demand is there but nobody has been able to buy one.
[...] CO2 and other poisonous gases.
CO2 is not poisonous... It helps make the environment greener :-P
1/ Put effort into R&D to design efficient nuclear power plants with good waste management and then build them when they work.
2/ Build a pile of 1960s Westinghouse dinosaur nuclear plants at vast expense to the taxpayer, keep them going at an high ongoing expense to the taxpayer, and shove the waste into a hole in the ground hoping that it doesn't rain much.
The first makes good engineering and economic sense. The second makes sense to those that pocket the money and anybody they have convinced with the help of a lot of PR money. The "we have to do it NOW" crowd (mostly influenced by those try to pull a fast one with option 2) are totally missing the fact that it still takes a decade to build a 1960s design even if you use a lot of parts interchangable with other thermal plants. There are not many places that make turbines and they have waiting lists for years for example. Let's not get into a pro-nuke, anti-nuke argument since both options will be irrelevant until a lot of capital is available (although the first would be a lot cheaper to at least get started on).
Then consider carbon credit trading - it's the idea of a parasitic extra economy getting more and more abstracted from the problem it is meant to solve.
Then consider edicts designed to make governments look "green". You have something like the large amount of electicity consumed by incandescant lights. Local governments (at least in Australia) have been consuming a lot in lighting and over several years have been implementing things that reduce the consumption - reflectors, different bulbs, LED traffic lights and so on. Instead of taking that approach and improving things in specific circumstances we got an idiot that just issued an edict - incandescant light bulbs will be illegal. So that means no lights in ovens or several other circumstances where CFLs and LEDs just will not work. Being an authoritarian idiot is "being green" and the end goal of reducing power consumption is forgotten.
It's only a sham movement if it is being done only to move. The solid reasons behind it that were considered virtues long ago remain valid. The problem is getting around the bullshit in this clothing (eg. 1960s nukes painted green) and spotting what is actually something that improves things. It is not helped by the large numbers of skilled confidence tricksters and fake medical practitioners that use it for their own ends. To make things worse arguments tend to go to extremes and the mediocrity where "all bad things are bad" and using such terms as "toxic waste" as absolutes whether it is ethanol which will dry out your skin or hydrofloric acid which will soak through your skin to dissolve your bones.
If junk wasn't meant to be thrown away, someone would pay you for it.
And I've heard that some Chinese guys have offered to pay for (or paid and got) the rights to "mine" old US landfills (for copper, I think)!
Liked your Victorianism parallel too! :)
Paul B.
I put a Watt Meter on my PC - 19W when "switched off". More than the TV's, Stereo's, DVD Player's and HDD Recorder's standby power combined. I guess it comes from the 90s when to qualify as ENergy Start complaint you needed to draw less than 20W. An ATX power supply's standby is rated at 10W - that is a heck of a lot of standby!
And I also like Clarion's ability to spin down idle disks in their SANs. When it comes to spinning them up, each disk takes 30 seconds to spin up and come on line, and spins up one at a time. How many sites will actually use that feature?
But I guess at least VMware's ability to migrate VMs away from ESX nodes, allowing them to power down and then Wake-on-LAN when needed seems sound.
It is being done to allow people who complete RFPs to tick the "Yes I am being green" box.
When customers want their car green, the manufacturer will paint them green. Probably with lead.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
When I read her comments on this article I automatically picture her as an old balding middle-American man...because really, who else goes on an all-out assault against "green" products? Sure the marketing and resulting smug factor are annoying, and a lot of companies are trying to jump on the "green" bandwagon often with not-green products, but we DO need to stop wasting energy and burning fossil fuels like it's 1899, contrary to what Wealthy EarthStomp McDeathFridge up top has to say.
The whole "green is BS" crowd reminds me of people who avoid and pooh-pooh any food labelled as "healthy" because of the hippie/health freak crowd that surrounds it which they don't want to be associated with...and people who don't maintain their computers/cars because of the geek/gearhead crowd that surround them which they don't want to be associated with...and people who refuse to try Linux/MacOS because of the FOSS nut/trendy hipster crowd surrounding them...and so on and so forth. Basically people who ignore and rebel against good advice because of some of the people advocating it. Those people really piss me off.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I understand the concept of conserving energy, substituting less toxic materials, increasing ease of recycling, reducing weight = less fuel burned, etc.
However, corporations have to tread a fine line. There are plenty of ways we could be reducing our impact on the planet, but they run right up against things like profit and the overall health of the economy. Consumers might change their tune if they knew that REALLY going green might mean they lose their jobs.
Let's say you have two cities. In city A, everyone earns $10 an hour and everything costs $1. In city B, everyone earns $20 an hour and everything costs $2. As far as residents of each city go, the world is pretty much the same. People can afford the same things, and live similar lives. But the GDP of city B is twice that of city A (actually, it's more than 2x, due to some of the rules of economics, but whatever). City B can borrow more money and if both cities decide to build a road to each other, the problem becomes obvious right away. Guys from City B buy up all the "cheap" real estate in City A, for example.
Anyway, you can substitute citrus based cleaners for chemical soups. But chemical soups generate more money for the economy, the advertising industry, everyone. You can go green, but you can't go green and get rich.
What you can do is dance around the idea of green. You can build hybrids out of expensive rare earth minerals instead of iron and steel, and call that good. You can sell green products that cost more than the "black" (I just made that up, but I kind of like it ...) products while using less electricity, but you can't go back to a simpler life of making soap out of bones and fat, because that dooms you to poverty by taking money out of circulation, permanently.
No wonder consumers are wary; they know, instinctively, that there is some kind of shell game going on, but they can't quite put their finger on what it is. Companies must continue to encourage consumption, which is another way of saying exploitation of the environment, or they risk innovating and planet-saving themselves out of existence.
So, we have "green" as an idea, not as reality. Companies promote recycling, when reduce and reuse have the real benefits to the environment. Recycling, however, benefits the economy as a whole. There is no "right" answer, and that frustrates consumers who don't see an effort being made where they instinctively know it should be made.
Yup, when I buy a video card all I really care about is FPS at 1920x1200 resolution for my games. The only reason I consider its power consumption is to decide whether or not I need a bigger power supply. I think I'm a typical geek this way.
Any servers we rack-up at our colo, however, I *really* care about the power consumption -- power drives our hosting costs (because our broadband usage is very asymmetric we pay almost nothing for broadband). I think corporations will get green when it saves them money. I think consumers get green when it saves them money -- a furnace's efficiency, a refrigerator's power consumption, whether or not insulation in the attic pays for itself off of your heating/cooling bills, etc. *these* things will affect consumer buying habits.
Really, does anyone expect people to buy the "greenest" cellphone? No, they get a boner for the latest i-phone or blackberry and that's the phone they want -- no one is going to pick between the greener of the two.
My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.