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."

Comments

Buzzwords

[Spazztastic]

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.

The specific attributes

[getuid()]

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.

Re:The specific attributes

[stokessd]

I'm #ff0000 #00ff00 colorbind you insensitive clod!

Sheldon

What the hell is green anyway?

[girlintraining]

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?

Re:What the hell is green anyway?

[Ethanol-fueled]

Personally, I'd avoid RoHS products like the plague given the poorer quality of the solder joints.

What good is "being green" when you're going to generate twice as much waste throwing the pieces of shit away?

Really?

[cayenne8]

"...the way a product affects the environment will be a huge consideration in consumer buying habits, at least when it comes to gadgets. "

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.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems like something the feds could or maybe even should do. They want restaurants to put dietary information on menus, what's the harm in putting wattage draws on electronic product? There is a pretty clear gap in the knowledge out there now, is "Green" ROHS? Is "Green" higher efficiency parts?

If there were two nearly identical machines and one drew 80w and the other drew 120w would that affect your decision?

I historically haven't cared but I have built some systems with AMD's HE parts and saw a measurable difference in my electric bill.

Re:Really?

[LotsOfPhil]

Honestly, I don't know anyone that takes into consideration how 'green' something is before they purchase it...especially gadgets.

What about appliances (fridges, laundry machines, etc)?

Re:Really?

[Fozzyuw]

Honestly, I don't know anyone that takes into consideration how 'green' something is before they purchase it...especially gadgets.

Actually, there are some but the general market research that my company has conducted (as well as many others I'm sure) will show that almost no consumer will pay more for a "green" product but they will likely choose a "green" product over a "non-green" product if all other things are equal. Which comes down to a simple idea of perceived value. In this case, the "green" product will make the consumer feel like they're getting more for their money (as intangible or obscure as it might directly be).

However, there is a very small segmentation of society that will "walk to walk", so to speak, and spend considerably more money on products labeled green. Most will not and most that do buy green products buy them for financial, not environmental, reasons. Meaning, they bought a Hybrid because they figured they'd be saving on gas costs. Or they bought CFL bulbs to save money on the electric bill. Stuff like that.

Very few consumers, if any, will pay more for green products. Simply said, spending money on making your product green, which will increase the price of your product, is not a good business decision. Luckily, most companies are finding out that they can do "green" things and save money. Turning off the lights and computers at the end of the day. Finding ways to reuse/recycle manufacturing waste or even implementing better recycling programs can save a company a lot of money while benefiting the environment.

I'm close enough to these ideas as the Market Research guy sits right across from me and has shown me our report on the "green" topic. I'm also part of my companies "Green Team" for which we've implemented and discussed some of the above examples. Just by implementing a better recycling program, we're cutting down a sizable percentage of waste going to a landfill, which in-turn, means less cost because waste removal is charged by the weight. As well as, once being charged for hauling away recyclables, there are companies who will do it for no cost because they actually make a fair amount on turning in recyclables.

Though, one interesting statistic from the last Executive Leadership Team minutes was that my company has managed to reduce overall electrical consumption by a few percentage points but the total costs more than doubled. Ouch.

Though, the whole "green" push has turned into "green-washing", where companies are overstating or trying to point out excessively small environmental impacts for the sake of PR.

Re:Really?

[RobinH]

Luckily, most companies are finding out that they can do "green" things and save money. Turning off the lights and computers at the end of the day. Finding ways to reuse/recycle manufacturing waste or even implementing better recycling programs can save a company a lot of money while benefiting the environment.

Having given this scenario a lot of thought recently, consider what happens to the money that the company saved. The "control" case is that they money is spent on energy/waste whatever. The "better" case is that less money is spent on energy/waste. Let's assume this translates into the company spending X dollars *less* on these expense accounts.

At the end of the accounting period, assuming revenue and all other expenses are the same, the company actually has more money in the bank. What happens to that money?

a) If the company leaves it in the bank, the bank will loan it out to other people/companies, all of whom will use it to purchase stuff, all of which will consume energy.

b) If the company re-invests the money in itself, it will spend it on capital projects, which of course consumes energy.

c) If the company disperses the income as dividends to shareholders, then the shareholders either put it in the bank (see (a)) or spend it (see (b)) or invest it. Investment increases the capital pool, which is all money available to companies to use and spend, presumably on stuff that will use energy.

Now all of these things are good *for the economy* because money is being spent more efficiently (we as humans are getting more of stuff that we value). However, I just can't see this kind of activity making any kind of difference on total energy, because what's happening is that we are getting more for the same amount of energy. The total energy used by a society will be roughly correlated with the amount of money spent in the economy, or depending on how you look at the relationship, vice-versa.

Has anyone else followed this line of thinking? Any thoughts?

I know that there are "clean" technologies vs. "dirty" technologies, so theoretically, expending equal dollars on a clean alternative might work (certainly common sense says it will). The immediate effect would be a lower price of the dirty technology (supply and demand), and then some suppliers of the dirty technology would stop producing it because it's no longer as profitable, until the supply drops enough that the price returns to a profitable level.

So from what I can tell, reducing consumption (and waste) of a commodity is good for the economy, but not necessarily for the environment. However, switching to an alternative "cleaner" commodity that costs the same *is* good for the environment, but neutral to the economy.

Re:Really?

[afidel]

You must have money to burn (and if you are looking at Wolf and Subzero you must) so the marginal cost of the energy use is nothing compared to the waste you've already spent on marketing image. For the rest of us it makes sense to look at efficiency, two refrigerators of the same size and general design are standing next to each other and one has the Energy Star stick at $200 / year and costs $400 and the other is $110/year but costs $450, you'd be stupid to buy the $400 model. This is what labeling can do for the consumer.

What's the definition of green?

[guruevi]

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.

Re:What's the definition of green?

[Otter]

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 Greenpeace, the worst offenders are a) whichever companies get them the most publicity by attacking them (Apple, Nintendo, but not semiconductor makers consumers have never heard of) and b) whoever doesn't give money to Greenpeace.

Re:What's the definition of green?

[UncleWilly]

Son

Obviously you never looked at America's rivers,etc in the 1960's.

Look at China now, that's what America was like in the 1960's.

Re:What's the definition of green?

[jellomizer]

Environmentalism has always been about balance. You can't survive and have 0 environmental impact. However it is about making the right trade offs and getting a balance where the earth can heal from our pollutant, but it doesn't hinder progress.

One can say Visualizing is Green because you can take 3 or 4 servers and run it on 1. However if you just visualized one server your not being green as the extra processing uses more energy.

You can say don't use computers but to get the work done we will need that much paper. There is even energy wasted in recycling the paper, as well all the driving to move the information on paper to the correct location.

Even calculating a carbon footprint is rather complex much like processing a Bill of Materials. And finding the most green choice will need an A* algorithm to process it.

Re:Next thing you know...

[Ethanol-fueled]

Like Energy Star?

Lead Free Solder, for example?

[retroworks]

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.

Dirty little business secret

[hellfire]

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.

Re:Dirty little business secret

[Silentknyght]

Except that green does not mean cheaper in all cases. Some additives to products are plentiful, cheap, and harmful to the environment. Replacing them with to be "Green" and not harmful usually means a replacement additive that is scarce(r) and/or (more) expensive. Food is an excellent example of this. Eating organic foods is excellent for your health, but rather expensive. That fast food cheeseburger, while cheap and tasty, is made from low quality products, fillers, and flavorings.

Re:Next thing you know...

[snowraver1]

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.

Huge impact ... maybe monetarily.

[CannonballHead]

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.

Green == Cheaper (sometimes)

[Ohio Calvinist]

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.

Green computing in a nutshell

[damn_registrars]

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.

Re:Very unlikley

[plague3106]

Some issues? You mean like catching fire?